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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context by listing the comparison dimensions (ability level, season, travel access, hazards, consistency, spot candidates), which informs the agent about what aspects the tool evaluates without repeating annotation data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the usage context, and every word is meaningful. No redundancy or fluff. It efficiently packs purpose, usage, and behavioral traits into minimal text.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, and comparison criteria. It lacks only a hint about the output format (e.g., a comparison summary), but that is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to comparison aspects: 'ability level' to surferLevel, 'season' to travelMonth, and 'destinations' explicitly. It also confirms the intended use of the destinations array.

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 compares specific surf destinations (countries, regions, spots) across multiple dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like recommend_surf_trip_destinations by focusing on comparison of user-defined sets.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use this when a user is deciding between specific countries, regions, or surf spots', providing a clear, direct usage guideline. It implicitly tells the agent this is for comparison, not for general recommendations or forecasts.

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