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.