MyBoatGuru Boat Advisor

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read operation, and the description adds important behavioral context: it describes the guided quiz flow, pre-filling of known preferences, and the output (top boat type matches with why each fits). It doesn't mention any rate limits, state persistence, or edge cases, but the added contextual detail exceeds what annotations provide. The score is reduced because no additional limitations are disclosed beyond the core behavior.

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 two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and context. Subsequent sentences earn their place by covering alternative routing and pre-fill behavior. There is no filler; every sentence adds actionable information.

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 14-parameter tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, when to use an alternative, how known preferences are handled, and what the output looks like conceptually. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters with enums and descriptions. The description does not add any syntax, format, or value-level detail beyond the schema. It explains the 'step' parameter implicitly ('launches a guided, step-by-step quiz'), but this is already clear from the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (launches a guided, step-by-step quiz), the resource (boat type recommendation), and the covered dimensions (purpose, water type, crew size, budget). It explicitly names the sibling alternative 'recommend-boat-type' and the conditions under which each should be used, making it readily distinguishable from other boat tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('The preferred way... especially on a client that can render interactive app content'), addresses a common pitfall ('having known preferences is a reason to use this tool, not a reason to skip it'), and provides clear when-not-to-use alternates ('Use recommend-boat-type instead only when the user explicitly asks for a quick, non-interactive text answer, or the current client cannot render interactive content'). This is complete routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully discloses what the comparison returns (cost, best-for, pros/cons, verdict), which matters since there is no output schema, but it adds no constraints, limits, or data-source context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and lists the output dimensions with zero filler. Every clause 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 two-parameter, fully-enumerated read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the result contains, covering the main gap. It is nearly complete, missing only any note on result format or ordering.

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% and both parameters carry enum-constrained values with descriptions, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no format, ordering, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two boat types), and enumerates the comparison dimensions (cost, best-for, pros/cons, verdict). This sets it apart from get-boat-type-details and recommend-boat-type implicitly, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 word 'side by side' and the two-parameter shape imply usage (use when evaluating two options against each other), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling tools that handle single-type details or recommendations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the lookup returns pros, cons, cost, size, propulsion, and ownership tips, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe error behavior, response format, or other runtime traits.

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 direct sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the returned information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, the scope, and the detail categories returned. There is no output schema, so listing the returned fields helps the agent understand the result. It stops short of naming alternatives or describing response structure, which leaves minor room for improvement.

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%, and the single boat_type parameter already has an enum and a clear description. The tool description does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up full details on one boat type.' It names concrete detail categories (pros, cons, cost, size, propulsion, tips), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare-boat-types or recommend-boat-type tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 'one boat type' implies a narrow lookup use case, and the sibling names suggest that comparison or recommendation belongs elsewhere. However, the description never says when to use this tool rather than compare-boat-types, recommend-boat-type, or get-gear-checklist. Usage is implied but not guided.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the checklist is grouped by priority and includes estimated costs, which is useful output context. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any behavioral nuance beyond what annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope ('universal boat gear and safety checklist'), followed by a key qualifier ('applies to any boat type'). No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it returns (checklist with costs and priority groups) and its universal applicability. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the format (e.g., list vs structured JSON), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description correctly implies no input is needed – it is a universal checklist. No parameter semantics are required.

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 it returns a 'universal boat gear and safety checklist with estimated costs, grouped by priority.' This is a specific verb (implied: get) and resource (gear checklist). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'compare-boat-types' or 'get-boat-type-details' – though the resource is distinct enough that an agent can likely infer the difference.

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 says it 'applies to any boat type,' which implicitly tells the agent this is a general-purpose checklist not tied to a specific boat. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when an agent should prefer this over other siblings.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not required to restate it. It adds genuinely useful behavior: output is text-only/non-interactive, and partial preference input is tolerated rather than required. It stops short of describing result content, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior before the routing rules. Every clause carries decision-relevant content; the final sentence is slightly redundant with the second but serves as a useful guard against a specific mis-selection.

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 13-parameter, all-optional tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the agent has everything needed: what it returns, what input it accepts, and precisely when to choose it over the sibling. 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 coverage is 100% with enum values and per-field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by clarifying that all 13 fields are optional and the tool will recommend based on whatever subset is known — semantics the schema's 'required: []' implies but does not state as intent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a quick, text-only boat type recommendation') and explicitly declares its scope: works with however many preferences are known, all fields optional. It directly names and contrasts with the sibling boat-quiz, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (user asks for a fast non-interactive answer, or the client cannot render interactive content), a when-not with a named alternative (prefer boat-quiz in every other case), and even pre-empts a likely misuse ('having fully known preferences is not by itself a reason to use this tool'). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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