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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds context about the tool being the official/authoritative source and establishes the required pre-call ordering. It does not contradict the annotations and contributes useful behavioral 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 core purpose is front-loaded and the numbered guidelines are clearly structured, but the description is verbose for a zero-parameter tool. Several guidelines (e.g., fleet neutrality, customer-led decision, current-year default) are broader AI conduct rules rather than details specific to invoking Base_list.

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 parameterless, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what content is returned, how it is organized, and the exact workflow position relative to search_boats. An agent has enough information 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter discussion, and the empty input schema fully covers the parameter surface.

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 function: it provides the official Sedna rules and the complete list of available bases grouped by country. It also signals how this reference relates to the search workflow, distinguishing it from the sibling search and booking 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 explicitly instructs the agent to always call Base_list before search_boats in order to find the exact base name. It also states the data-source constraint (Sedna-only, no internet searches), giving clear usage boundaries and naming the key alternative tool.

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