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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that the return includes source/freshness metadata and that measurements are in ft/kt/s/F/mi with directions FROM. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it omits what happens when a boatId is not found.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact units/return note. Efficient with no filler, though the units string is slightly jargon-dense.

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 single-record read with annotations covering safety, the description supplies units and return/freshness context, which is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is identifier sourcing for boatId, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions the nested boatId, its allowed character pattern, or how the caller obtains a valid id (e.g., from list_boats).

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 single boat record 'from the library,' which adds some scope beyond the name get_boat, but it largely restates the title 'One boat's specs.' It never contrasts itself with siblings like list_boats (which would also come from the same library) or get_my_vessel, so the agent gets only an implied sense of the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over list_boats for a single vessel or how it relates to get_my_vessel.

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