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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filter/sort behavior but says nothing beyond the schema about result ordering defaults, pagination limits, or what happens with zero matches.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the returned fields are stated before the narrowing options, which is a sensible front-loading. The first sentence is a long attribute list but every item maps to real output.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers both what comes back and how to narrow it, which is the minimum an agent needs. Missing only a note on default ordering or result size behavior, which the limit parameter partially covers.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including enum meanings for sort and status. The description only adds a region example ('Mediterranean'), which is marginal added meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the resource (cruise ships) and enumerates the attributes returned (line, class, year, tonnage, capacity, rating, status, page link), so an agent knows this is a filtered list endpoint rather than a detail lookup like get_cruise_ship. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence lays out the filter dimensions (line, region, name query, min rating, status) and sort options, which implies when to reach for this tool over a single-ship fetch. However, it never states when to prefer list_cruise_lines, top_cruise_ships, or get_cruise_ship instead, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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