Beaches of Mallorca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: results are sorted best-first and beaches lacking a valid current forecast are silently dropped. It does not say what happens when no beach qualifies or how results are truncated by limit.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the ranking rule and the ordering front-loaded before the inclusion caveat. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description conveys the ordering and the filtering rule, which are the key unknowns for a ranked-list tool, and all four params are optional and schema-documented. It stops short of describing the return shape or the empty-result case, a minor but real 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with enums and defaults documented inline for mode, region, limit and language. The description only echoes the mode distinction (swimming vs family) and adds no syntax, fallback or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific resource (Mallorca beaches), a ranking criterion (highest current score for swimming or a family visit) and an output ordering (best first). This clearly separates it from list_beaches (an unfiltered inventory) and get_conditions (raw forecast data), even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: 'highest current score for swimming or for a family visit' signals the two selection modes, and 'only beaches with a valid current forecast are included' tells the agent results are pre-filtered. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_beaches or get_conditions, and no exclusions.

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

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

The annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context: the return format is Markdown and the guide is 'reviewed' with official sources. It does not cover recency, sourcing policy details, or failure behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately says what the tool returns and then lists the relevant content sections. There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies the output format and enumerates the guide sections, so an agent knows what to expect. Safety behavior is covered by annotations, and parameter details are covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the beach identifier and language parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 resource (reviewed guide for one beach) and enumerates the guide contents, making the tool's output clearly distinguishable from a simple list or conditions lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 by 'for one beach' and the detailed guide contents, so an agent can infer this is for deep per-beach information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_conditions, list_beaches, or best_beaches_now.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: data provenance (hourly forecast and official AEMET warnings) and freshness metadata (generation time and validity window per answer). It stops short of describing data-failure behavior or how warnings alter scores.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned values before filtering and freshness. Nothing is padding, though the 'Each answer states when it was generated' sentence could be folded more compactly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enumerate the returned fields (scores, water temp, wave height, wind) and their range, plus sourcing and validity. Adequate for a 3-optional-param read tool; only the response's structure for multi-beach listings is left unclear.

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% with enum and format guidance already in the schema. The description adds only that beach and region are optional filters and that omitting region means all, which duplicates the schema's own 'Omit for all'; the language parameter is not mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific resource and verb: current swimming/family scores plus water temperature, wave height and wind for Mallorca beaches. It is clear on scope (Mallorca, current, 0-10 scores) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling best_beaches_now, which plausibly returns overlapping score data.

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 only implied: fetch current conditions, optionally narrowing to a beach or region. The description names no alternative (e.g. best_beaches_now) or exclusion condition, so an agent must infer when this tool beats its siblings.

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

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds the return shape (slug, name, municipality, region), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits list size, ordering, or pagination behavior for a 'all beaches' result.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the downstream usage hint. 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 zero-required-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and next step. Only the omission of result-size/ordering behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100% and the single region parameter is documented with an enum and 'Omit for all.' The description never mentions the region filter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific resource ('All beaches covered by the site') plus the exact fields returned, so an agent knows it is an enumeration endpoint. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling best_beaches_now, which also surfaces beaches, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use a slug with get_beach_guide or get_conditions' tells the agent this is the slug-discovery step that feeds other tools, which is real routing guidance. It gives no explicit exclusion against best_beaches_now, so the alternative case is only implied.

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