Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by enumerating the returned attributes and by warning that '"No issues recorded" is not a guarantee of none' — an interpretive caveat an agent scoping a recommendation genuinely needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler. The scope statement leads, the returned fields follow, and the caveat is deliberately placed last rather than buried mid-sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the response and does so thoroughly, plus a useful caveat. The only gap is behavior when the ship or cabin does not exist (error vs empty result), which an agent might want to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry examples ('Allure of the Seas', '9318' or 'D126'). The description restates that lookup is by ship and room number but adds no new constraint or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('One specific cabin by ship and room number') and then enumerates exactly what is returned (deck, side/position, category, size, sleeps, connecting cabin, known issues, cruiser reports). The emphasis on 'one specific cabin' implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling getShipCabins.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the use case clear (look up a single cabin identified by ship and cabin number), so usage is implied, but it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition. An agent must infer that getShipCabins is the list-level counterpart rather than being told.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.