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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds topical detail but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data availability, matching behavior, or response format. It is adequate but adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core subject ('A cruise line's dress code') followed by a compact colon-separated list of coverage areas. Every element adds value and there is no filler.

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 a single fully-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent nature, the description provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could additionally state whether results vary by line or whether some lines lack data, but that is a minor gap.

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?

The only parameter, 'line', has 100% schema description coverage with an example ('Royal Caribbean'). The tool description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('get' + 'dress code') and enumerates the exact content areas covered: daytime/evening rules, formal nights, jeans/shorts/swimwear, venues, and theme nights. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getCruiseLineProfile or getShipProfile.

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 clearly establishes the domain: cruise line dress codes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it. No prerequisites or exclusions are needed for this simple read query.

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