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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond them: the output is a link with pre-filled fields, and the boater must review and start the trip themselves, meaning the tool does not initiate the trip.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first explains what is produced, and the second clarifies the user's required follow-up action with no wasted wording.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the schema covering parameter semantics, the description supplies the missing output behavior (a link) and user flow. It does not cover link expiration or app requirements, but it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description enumerates route, crew, hours, leave time, safety gear, and note as pre-filled fields, which reinforces their role but does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 states that the tool produces a link that opens a pre-filled float plan with specific fields. It distinguishes the action from actually starting the trip by noting the boater checks it and starts in the app themselves, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'For a boat trip' gives context, and the note that the boater completes the process in the app implies this is a preparation step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like open_plan_in_app or what prerequisites exist.

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