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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with stating those traits. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as not-found behavior, response shape, or what 'details' include. This is acceptable but minimally additive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and invocation keys.

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 simple read-only detail fetch with two string parameters and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the action, and the identifier options. The main gap is the lack of guidance on edge cases or response expectations, but given the low complexity and good annotations, this is not a major omission.

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 must compensate for the bare parameter names 'id' and 'slug'. It does add meaning by indicating these are the lookup identifiers and that the slug is specifically a SEO slug. However, it does not clarify behavior when both are provided, whether one is preferred, or what formats are accepted.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('detail of one boat listing'), and clearly identifies the lookup keys ('seo_slug or id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_boats, which focus on listing searches rather than single-record detail retrieval.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need details for a single boat listing identified by slug or id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the singleton scope and identifier-based lookup provide sufficient contextual guidance.

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