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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't say what happens with an empty query, whether results are ordered by date, whether an 'upcoming' default exists, or how filters combine.

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 terse fragments, no filler, with the content scope front-loaded before the filter list. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than elegant brevity.

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 nine-parameter search tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what to filter on but not the defaults that matter: result ordering, behavior with no filters supplied, and what a result record contains. It is minimum viable rather than 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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, and the description merely restates the filter names (q, state, region, type, waterway, from/to, upcoming) without adding meaning. Useful details such as whether 'q' searches name only or description too, or whether filters AND together, are absent.

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 names the resource concretely by enumerating the event categories covered (boat shows, regattas, safety courses, rendezvous), which tells an agent exactly what records this tool searches. It does not differentiate from siblings such as find_boating_businesses or search_guides, but the domain scope is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, even though the sibling list contains several other search tools an agent could confuse it with. The only implicit usage hint is the 'upcoming' flag, which suggests limiting to future events but never states it as guidance.

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