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 useful behavioral context by specifying the scope of results (package names, value, daily limits, gratuity) and the cruiseline filter dimension.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with a colon-separated list of returned details, front-loading the resource and scope. There is no filler or redundant material.

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 one optional parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and a description that lists the return contents, an agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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% for the single optional parameter, and the schema already explains 'Cruise line name; omit for all lines'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly identifies the tool's resource (beverage packages by cruise line) and enumerates the specific returned details: package names, maximum drink value, daily limits, and gratuity. None of the sibling tools target drink packages, so it is readily distinguishable.

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?

Usage context is implied: it provides beverage-package details and can be filtered by cruiseline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like getCruiseLineProfile or when not to use it.

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