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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: results have passed Sedna planning/block and pricing checks, results intentionally omit images, and there is a 30-result threshold with defined agent behavior. These are operational traits an agent could not infer from the 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?

Four paragraphs with a clean front-loaded core (what it does, prerequisite, result thresholds) followed by media routing and data-quality caveats. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable rules; nothing is padding.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and a complex availability workflow, the description covers prerequisites, result thresholds, sibling routing for media and pricing, and edge-case handling of incomplete fleet facts. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on results 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive value: 'base' must be an official name from Base_list, and it explains how missing length/beam must be treated (omitted, never zeroed, never used to exclude). It does not explain the 'option' or 'page' semantics beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Sedna for yachts available for the exact requested dates') with the availability scope nailed down. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings: boat_details is for media, booking_detail for date-specific pricing, Base_list for resolving the base 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call Base_list first and use an official base name, use boat_details for photos/plans/documents, use booking_detail for prices/extras/ports. It also gives result-handling rules for >30 matches, <=30 matches, and zero matches, so the agent knows exactly what to do on each branch.

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