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

The description adds useful context by framing this as a static, authoritative rule set that applies to all conversations. It does not contradict the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations. It could be slightly more explicit that invoking this tool returns the rules as its output, but the content makes that clear.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then delivers a numbered, actionable list. Each rule earns its place and there is no filler or redundant wording. The length is justified because the description is itself the substantive content of the readme tool.

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?

The description provides complete operational context: ordering requirements, ID integrity rules, date clarification, media handling, and the distinction between search, details, and booking tools. Nothing needed for an agent to use the tool correctly is missing, and no output schema is required for a static rule set.

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 and the schema already covers this fully with an empty object. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning; it is compatible and does not introduce any confusion.

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 exactly what the tool provides: the official Sedna rules for public yacht-search conversations. It distinguishes itself from the operational sibling tools because it is a rule set, not an action. It is specific and not a tautology of the tool name.

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?

It explicitly says the rules govern every public yacht-search conversation, and the numbered rules directly tell the agent when to use which sibling tool, e.g., 'Call Base_list before search_boats', 'call boat_details', and 'Use booking_detail only for date-specific availability'. This is strong when-to-use guidance with concrete alternatives.

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