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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that results carry a verification tier and a citable canonical URL — but says nothing about pagination, default limit, result ordering, or empty-result behavior for a 12-filter search.

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 with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value note. It is efficient, though it spends its second sentence on output rather than on the twelve filters that need explanation.

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 12 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about what each filter accepts and how results are shaped. It covers citation/verification metadata but is inadequate for a multi-facet search tool of this complexity.

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 0% across 12 parameters, and the description explains none of them: q, area, locality, country, type, entry, level, current, verification, limit, and the two depth bounds are all undocumented. The only relatable phrase, 'verification tier', refers to the return value, not to how the 'verification' filter works.

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 verb (search) and resource (dive-site summaries), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_guides or list_species. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_guides, get_site_plate, or get_atlas_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'summaries'.

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