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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'live Harris Boat Works valuation' and the conditional horsepower omission, which are useful behavioral cues, but it does not explicitly state side effects, read-only nature, or failure/error behavior.

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 two focused sentences with no redundant or extraneous content. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key parameter nuance.

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?

There is no output schema or return-value description, and most parameter semantics are missing. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 parameter descriptions are absent, and the description only clarifies that horsepower may be omitted in a specific case. The remaining parameters—brand, year, model, condition, engine_type, and engine_hours—are left unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Estimate the trade-in value (CAD) of a customer's current outboard' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_motors or build_quote, though the trade-in focus is fairly evident.

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 only usage note is 'Horsepower may be omitted when the model infers a single validated HP,' which addresses one parameter condition. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_motors or build_quote.

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