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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a per-consultation call budget ('limited to a few calls') and the requirement to attribute the output as the advisor's. It stops short of describing how the opinion is returned or how the handle drives follow-up state, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct load: purpose, trigger, exclusion, attribution rule, call budget. The scope constraint ('ONE offer') is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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, and the description covers what matters most: what the tool returns conceptually, that it must be quoted as the advisor's, and its call-frequency limit. It omits how the returned handle should be threaded into subsequent calls, a small gap against a five-parameter tool with stateful follow-up.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: cruise_id must be an offer produced by find_cruises, focus is implicitly enumerated via 'overall fit, or which cabin category or fare', and the mention of a 'consultation' contextualises the handle parameter's continuity role.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('asks the provider's cruise advisor for a short, honest opinion on ONE offer from find_cruises') and explicitly bounds the subject to a single offer. It is immediately distinguishable from find_cruises (search) and other profile siblings by naming what it is not: a searcher, booker, or comparator.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('is this right for me', 'which cabin', 'which fare') and equally explicit exclusions ('not after every find_cruises', 'never for a whole list'). The agent needs no inference to decide between this and find_cruises.

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