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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (ship info, regions, inclusions, booking URL) and the agent affiliation, but does not explicitly state side effects, read-only nature, or limitations. While it adds value by enumerating return fields, it leaves some uncertainty about behaviors like external calls or data freshness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers return values and usage. However, the sentence about Steve Griswold and the Top 100 First Mate credential is tangential to tool invocation and could be considered filler. The structure is logical but not maximally concise.

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 search tool with no output schema and all optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. The only minor gap is missing guidance on the departure_month format, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 67% (ship and region have descriptions, departure_month does not). The description lists ship names and region examples, but these largely repeat the schema's examples. It does not add meaningful guidance for departure_month or parameter format. This is neither fully compensated by the description nor fully covered by the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Virgin Voyages adult-only cruises'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_sandals_resorts or find_cruise. It also clarifies the 18+ and no kids aspect, which is unique to this tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever a user mentions Virgin Voyages or asks about adult-only cruises.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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