Compare 2 to 4 boats side by side: specs, indicative price and availability.
boat_ids: list of 2..4 boat ids
currency: EUR, USD, CNY (default EUR)
start_date/end_date: optional availability window (YYYY-MM-DD)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boat_ids | Yes | ||
| currency | No | EUR | |
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as 'indicative price' (implying non-binding estimates) and the constrained boat count of 2 to 4.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a tight bullet list covering all parameters. 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?
With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and the description covering purpose, parameter semantics, and constraints, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full parameter documentation burden. It clearly explains boat_ids (2-4 ids), currency (EUR/USD/CNY, default EUR), and optional start/end dates with YYYY-MM-DD format—all in plain language beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'Compare' and names the exact resource ('2 to 4 boats') and the compared aspects ('specs, indicative price and availability'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like boat_details or search_boats.
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 makes the intended use obvious: comparing multiple boats with explicit constraints on boat count and optional availability window. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.