find_sailings

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are ordered 'earliest arrival first' and each sailing includes 'cut-offs and a routing_reference to book'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence that starts with the core resource (sailings between ports), then the ordering, then the key output details. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Combined with a rich schema (6 parameters, 83% described), an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is sufficient for a basic call. Gaps remain: it does not explain how routing_reference feeds into propose_booking, what 'cut-offs' mean, or how open-world results should be interpreted.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description only redundantly references 'one port to another' for origin/destination and adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool returns sailings between an origin and destination, sorted by earliest arrival, with cut-offs and a routing_reference. This is distinct from the booking, tracking, and plan-management siblings, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool finds sailings 'to book', so it naturally fits before propose_booking in a booking workflow. However, it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives like propose_booking, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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