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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it. It discloses that the operation is 'Read-only,' explains result ordering ('follow the site's model order'), describes the limit behavior, defines response fields (total and totalAvailable), and states the empty-result case. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a read-only list tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-only. Returns a list...') and every sentence carries information: usage guidance, sibling differentiation, ordering, limit semantics, response fields, and empty behavior. It is slightly verbose compared to the tightest possible version, but each sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, field names, filtering, limit semantics, count fields, empty behavior, and when to use alternatives. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (limit with default/max/min, status with enum and omission behavior). The description adds minor context by mentioning 'filter by build status' and 'limited to the requested limit,' but does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns a list of sailing-ship model summaries') and enumerates the exact fields included. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_project_status and get_build_details and stating what each of those is for, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly gives usage scenarios: 'browse the model catalog, compare models, filter by build status, or discover a model before requesting details.' It also provides clear exclusion guidance: 'Use get_project_status only for the current progress of one known model' and 'Use get_build_details for vessel background, technical notes, or build-log content.' This fully routes the agent to the right tool.

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