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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results have passed Sedna planning/block and pricing checks, search results intentionally contain no images, and the agent is told to state count and fleets for large sets. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Six sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: purpose, prerequisite, result checks, large-set handling, no-images note, and follow-up tool routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and not overly verbose given the tool's complexity (13 params, no output schema).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what to do with results. It covers result counts, fleet names, and the absence of images, plus follow-up calls for media and pricing. It also handles the none-match case by suggesting alternative bases or dates. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret the high-level outcome.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: the 'base' parameter must come from Base_list, and 'start_date' plus 'nights' define the charter period that results are checked against. It also implies the use of optional filters (fleet, model, year) via the >10 result handling, though it doesn't detail each parameter.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('Sedna'), and a precise scope ('yachts available for the exact requested dates'). It also differentiates from siblings by referencing Base_list, boat_details, and booking_detail, making its role clear without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call Base_list first and use an official base name. It provides conditional behavior for result counts (more than 10, 10 or fewer, none) and explicitly routes the agent to boat_details for media and booking_detail for pricing, which clearly distinguishes from alternatives.

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