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.