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

The description explains the tool returns one sailing per carrier, ranked, with various filters. However, it does not disclose how the ranking is computed (e.g., heuristic, ML), nor does it mention data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose, filtering options, and use case. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool does and the filters available, but it does not describe the output format or fields. Given no output schema, this omission could reduce clarity for an agent, though it is partially compensated by the sibling tools' familiarity.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or format details. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a decision query for finding the best upcoming sailings on a lane, one per carrier, ranked. It specifies filtering options and the intended use case ('what should I book?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_sailings which likely return all sailings.

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 provides clear context that this is a decision query for ranking best options, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare to alternatives like find_sailings. The phrase 'Use this to answer "what should I book?"' gives strong guidance.

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