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.