get_cruise_track

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. It states the output is a 'resource URL for client-side map use' which partially conveys it returns a URL rather than raw data, but there's no annotation coverage for read-only status or other behavioral traits. The description doesn't disclose what happens if the cruise_name isn't found, or whether this returns a single URL or possibly multiple.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the use case. It's efficient but could perhaps add a bit more value in the same compact form.

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?

Given there is an output schema present, the return value format may be covered by that schema. However, the tool has no annotations, only 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and the description provides no error behavior or additional usage context. For a simple single-param tool the description is thin but not catastrophically so, though the lack of parameter semantics is a gap.

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?

There is only 1 parameter (cruise_name), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what format cruise_name should take (e.g., full name, partial match, case sensitivity), or what values are valid. With zero schema coverage and no param description, the agent has no way to know how to construct a valid cruise_name.

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 'Return the API's cruise track resource URL for client-side map use' which has a specific verb (Return) and resource (cruise track resource URL) with a clear use case (client-side map). It's clear in purpose and distinguishes from siblings since it returns a URL for map use rather than data rows or profiles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when a client might need this URL, whether it's the primary way to get cruise track data, or when to use sibling tools like list_stations or find_cruises instead. The map-use context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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