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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are compact and that all filters are optional/combinable, which is useful. However, it does not disclose result ordering/ranking behavior for month queries, default limits, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then adds the most decision-relevant details about filters and the get_beach alternative.

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 and no annotations, the tool description provides only a minimal 'compact records' hint about return shape and does not clarify how it relates to sea_temperature_year or warmest_beaches_in_month. For a tool with six parameters and specialized siblings, this leaves several selection and usage questions unanswered.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that all filters are optional and combinable, a parameter-level behavior not explicitly spelled out in the schema.

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 searches and filters the beach atlas, and the title adds the worldwide scope. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_beach by noting that it returns compact records rather than full profiles. However, it does not differentiate itself from the temperature-focused siblings (sea_temperature_year, warmest_beaches_in_month), which overlap with the month and min_sea_temp_c parameters.

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 clear context: this tool is for searching/filtering when compact records are sufficient, and get_beach should be used when a full profile is needed. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the specialized temperature siblings over this tool, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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