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

The description adds context beyond the read-only annotations by explaining that cards are drawn by the host, not the agent, and that unknown or expired cruise_ids are omitted and named in the result. This makes the tool's side effects, ordering constraints, and failure behavior clear.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core behavior, then follows with invocation constraints and failure handling. Every sentence carries a concrete instruction or constraint, with 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?

For a read-only presentation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the definition is complete: it explains what gets shown, when to call it, what ids to pass, and what happens when ids are invalid. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 handle and language are already well documented. The description meaningfully adds semantics for cruise_ids by tying them to a previous find_cruises result, specifying count, order, and the single-recommendation exception.

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 states a specific verb and outcome: it shows the user recommended cruises as host-rendered cards with ship photo, route, dates, price, and booking link. It also explicitly distinguishes this from find_cruises by saying it does NOT search, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives precise invocation rules: call once, as the last step, after deciding what to recommend, with 3-5 cruise_id values from a previous find_cruises result. It also covers the single-recommendation case and the recovery path when an id is unknown or expired.

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