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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world false, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope ('One ship') and enumerates returned fields, but does not add auth, error, or rate-limit context beyond the safety profile already covered.

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 that enumerates fields without waste. It is not front-loaded with a verb, but remains efficient for a simple lookup tool.

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?

For a simple one-ship read with strong annotations and a fully documented parameter, the field enumeration usefully compensates for the absence of an output schema. Missing usage routing and sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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% for the single ship parameter, including an example. The description does not add any parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

It states the resource and scope ('One ship') and enumerates the profile fields returned, distinguishing it from line-wide or sailing tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling alternative to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like getCruiseLineProfile or getShipCabins. Usage is only implied by the resource name and field list.

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