find_cruises

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'find cruises' but does not state whether it calls a remote API, whether the refresh parameter triggers network calls, whether results are cached, rate limits, or data freshness behavior. For a tool with a mysterious 'refresh' parameter, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that covers the main filtering criteria. No fluff or repetition. However, it is slightly under-specified given the tool has a non-obvious refresh parameter.

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?

Despite having a complex parameter set (an unused refresh param, a default cruise_type, nullable season) and an output schema, the description is minimal. Given the tool has several parameters and sibling tools to contextually differentiate against, the description is adequate but does not explain return shape, filtering semantics, or the refresh behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only matches year, season, and cruise_type to 'year, meteorological season, and type.' The description completely ignores the 'refresh' parameter, which is non-obvious (what does refresh do?) and the description does not help disambiguate the meaning of 'meteorological season' values. Baseline would be 3 given coverage is 0% and description does not compensate fully.

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 'Find cruises by year, meteorological season, and type' clearly states the verb (find) and resource (cruises) plus the filter dimensions (year, season, type). It distinguishes from siblings since none of the siblings are cruise-finding tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or detail what being returned means beyond basic filtering.

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 implies usage in searching across years, seasons, and types but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't compare against sibling tools like get_cruise_track (which fetches track details) or list_dataset_rows. The context is implied rather than stated.

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