Sailtix

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only nature, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the search dimensions and the return fields (price, duration, capacity, inclusions, operator). It does not contradict the annotations and adds context beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core purpose and key capabilities in a compact format.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for a search tool. It captures the main purpose, filters, and return information, but could more explicitly address limit behavior and differentiate from sibling search tools.

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 description adds natural-language meaning for parameters like 'guest count' (guests) and 'trip length' (duration_type), which are not fully described in the schema. Most parameters are referenced, though 'limit' and 'charter_style' are not explicitly mentioned.

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 uses a specific verb ('searches') and a clear resource ('private boat and yacht charter packages'), and explicitly lists the key filtering dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fishing_search and sailing_search by focusing on general private charters.

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 implies this tool is for finding boat/yacht charters, and the filters give context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fishing_search or sailing_search, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by detailing the return fields (price, duration, capacity, target species, operator) and stating that charter filters apply here too, which informs the agent about inherited filtering 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key filters/returns in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the catalog relationship. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's straightforward search nature, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return fields, and category context. It could be more explicit about sibling differentiation, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand scope and expected results.

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 description maps several parameter concepts to schema properties ('departure area' to location, 'date' to date, 'angler count' to anglers, 'technique' to charter_style), but it does not mention the limit or duration_type parameters. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description partially compensates but leaves two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Searches fishing charter trips'), then lists distinct filter dimensions (departure area, date, angler count, technique) and return fields (price, duration, capacity, target species, operator). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting fishing trips are a category of the charter catalogue, which clearly separates it from charter_search and sailing_search.

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 implies that this is a specialized search within the charter catalogue ('Fishing trips are a category of the charter catalogue'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over charter_search or sailing_search, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the name and the category note.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that entries include identifiers and that the optional query filters by name/slug, but these largely repeat schema details and do not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or edge cases.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and contains no filler or redundant 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 simple list tool with a rich output schema, thorough annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description adequately conveys its role as a provider of identifiers for the sibling search tools. No gaps remain for the agent to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the limit default and query matching semantics. The description restates the query behavior without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'lists', names the resource 'harbors and destination regions', and emphasizes that entries include identifiers the search tools accept. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools (charter_search, fishing_search, sailing_search) which perform searches rather than list reference data.

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 clearly implies usage as a precursor to searches by stating identifiers are 'the search tools accept.' It provides clear context for when to invoke this tool but does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by disclosing input flexibility (harbor name, region name, slug, identifier) and the rule that at least one side is required. This complements the structured annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate return-value expectations. Every sentence adds operational detail; there is no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, optional inputs, output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what is searched, what is returned, allowed input formats, and an edge-case constraint. The output schema covers return formatting, so this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 56%, so the description partially compensates. It clarifies that origin and destination accept multiple formats and that at least one must be provided, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also explains that nationality affects fare band. However, it does not elaborate on adult/child/infant/limit parameters beyond their schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and clearly identifies the resource ('scheduled ferry and fast-boat departures between two places on a given date'). It lists concrete return fields (times, operator, vessel, duration, seats, fares), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like charter_search and fishing_search that target different types of transport.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (scheduled sea transport) and states an important constraint ('at least one side must be given'). It also references locations_list as a source for identifiers, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast it with alternatives.

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