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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that every answer links deck plan pages and, importantly, that venue records are incomplete — an unlisted venue means unrecorded, not missing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information: the modes, example values, the link guarantee, and the completeness caveat. The opening sentence is long and heavily parenthetical, which slightly hurts scanability but avoids waste.

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?

Given only three flat parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mode selection, the kind of answer returned, and the key data-quality caveat. The remaining gap is the combined-parameter case (venue plus deck), which an agent may reasonably need 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: venue accepts a kind of venue ("bars"), and the response adds forward/midship/aft and port/starboard positioning. The one gap is not stating what happens when both ship, deck, and venue are supplied together.

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 resource (deck plans) and verb-like behavior (locate venues/facilities and their deck positions) with three explicit query modes. An agent can immediately distinguish this from getShipCabins or getShipProfile without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the three invocation modes: pass venue, pass deck, or pass neither, each with an example value ("pizza", "theater", "10"). It does not name a sibling tool to prefer for cabin-specific questions, so the routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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