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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope ('published/current') and two important limitations (no availability check, price not trip calculation), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose pagination, result limits, or return format, so it remains moderately transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by limitations. The phrasing is terse but every sentence carries 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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits all parameter semantics, sorting/pagination behavior, and return fields, leaving the agent without guidance for accurate invocation.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning but does not. It only touches on 'price from' tangentially and explains none of q, sort, limit, offset, types, guests_min/max, price_min/max, or trip_format_code. An agent cannot infer parameter usage from this definition.

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 identifies the resource and scope: published, current boats with public characteristics and links. It contrasts with check_availability by stating search does not check free slots. Although it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, an agent can infer the search/listing purpose from the name and description.

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 states what the tool does not do — it does not check free slots and 'price from' is not a trip calculation — which implies check_availability is the right sibling for slot queries. However, it never names the alternative, so the guidance is context-rich but not fully explicit.

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