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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: result ranking rules, distance-based ordering when only position is given, and the fact that station IDs are returned for downstream consumption. No contradictions with 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, name-based ranking, position-based ranking, and return value. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers geographic scope, ranking behavior, and the essential return value (station ID). It does not describe the full output shape or possible empty-result behavior, but the ID-centric output and sibling-tool linkage are sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema documents query, latitude, and longitude directly. The description adds meaning not present in the schema by explaining how query and position interact, and how ranking depends on whether both are supplied. The limit parameter is left to schema defaults and constraints, which is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find tide stations') and immediately scopes the search to the United States, Canada, and US territories. It also explains the output (station IDs) and its connection to get_tides/get_conditions, clearly distinguishing this search tool from those data-retrieval siblings.

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 clearly lays out the three invocation modes—by place name, by position, or both—and how ranking changes across them. It also signals workflow usage by noting the returned ID feeds get_tides and get_conditions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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