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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does: default 8 AM off-ship, up to 3 picks, the trimming rule that guarantees arrival 2h (3h international) before the flight, airport defaults per port, and the caveat that drive times are estimates. It does not discuss result ordering beyond 'in order' or what happens if fewer than 3 places fit.

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 scenario is front-loaded, which is good, but the single sentence sprawls through stacked parentheticals and re-states defaults (8 AM, 2 vs 3 hours) that also appear in the schema. It is informative rather than padded, but it could be restructured into short scannable clauses without losing content.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials: scenario, defaults, the planning constraint, and roughly what is returned. The missing piece is the mood dimension, an unusual enum whose six values ('old', 'weird', 'road') are not interpretable from the schema alone.

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 88%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new information: the port→default-airport mapping (MIA, FLL, MCO, TPA, JAX, EYW) and the explicit bags→2-stop consequence. The mood parameter, with six non-obvious values, gets no explanation anywhere beyond one-word schema hints, which is the main gap.

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 concretely describes the output: up to 3 stops near the port in order, with drive times and a leave-for-the-airport time, for the specific 'off the ship, not yet flying' scenario. That is far more specific than a restated title, and the debark-day framing implicitly separates it from shore_day and draft_float_plan. It lacks an explicit verb up front ('Plan...'), so the purpose has to be inferred from the narrative.

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?

'Off the ship, not on the plane yet' states the triggering situation clearly, and 'the person decides' sets the advisory (non-booking) posture. The 2h/3h pre-flight constraint and bags=true→2-stops rule further scope correct use. It never names a sibling tool as an alternative or exclusion, so routing vs shore_day or find_places is left to inference.

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