BeachFinder - beaches and live conditions

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

Annotations already define readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it uses 'only documented facts and current available conditions', further constraining behavior. No contradiction 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?

Single sentence of 16 words, no redundancy. Verb 'compare' is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 an output schema, return values need no explanation. Input constraints are stated. However, description does not elaborate on what 'compare' entails (e.g., dimensions or presentation). Still sufficient for basic use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It partially describes spotIds ('two to five explicit... IDs') but does not mention lang or intent parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'compare', the resource 'BeachFinder spots' via explicit IDs, and the constraints (2-5 spots, uses documented facts and conditions). This distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools that handle single spots or do not compare.

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?

Description implies when to use: to compare specific spots based on facts and conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by emphasizing anonymity and aggregation: 'anonymous aggregate', 'No user identity is returned'. This informs the agent that results are anonymized and observational, consistent with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and key constraints. No superfluous information; every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, anonymity, and scope. For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is largely complete, though it could mention that the aggregate is limited to active reports (already stated).

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 input schema has 0% schema description coverage, but the description only indirectly references spotId ('for one spot') and does not explain the lang parameter (e.g., its purpose as locale) or the uuid format. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying parameter semantics or constraints.

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 it retrieves an anonymous aggregate of active BeachFinder community reports for one spot, specifying the verb 'Get', the resource 'community reports', and the scope 'for one spot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_spot_conditions (likely official) and get_spot_details (general details).

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 implies usage for obtaining community reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spot_conditions or get_spot_details. No 'when not to use' or recommendation for other tools is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that conditions are 'current' and lists the signals, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid spotId) or rate limits. Given the rich annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description covers the main functionality sufficiently. It does not detail the output format, but the output schema exists. A minor gap is the lack of mention of the optional lang parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the spotId parameter's role (one BeachFinder spot ID) but does not mention the 'lang' parameter or its enum values. The description partially clarifies input but leaves one parameter undocumented. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'spot conditions', and specifies the types of conditions (water, weather, wind, UV, wave, current) for a specific spot ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_spot_details' or 'get_community_conditions'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it differs from siblings like 'compare_spots' or 'search_surf_spots'. The context of sibling tools exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the data is 'stable public facts and localized editorial content', indicating it is safe to call repeatedly and that results do not change frequently. This goes beyond the annotation labels.

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 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. No extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but missing coverage of the 'lang' parameter. It also lacks usage guidance relative to siblings. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is moderately complete but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly references spotId as 'one BeachFinder spot ID', but it completely omits the 'lang' parameter, which has a default of 'en'. An agent may not know that language can be specified or that the default is English.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'stable public facts and localized editorial content for one BeachFinder spot ID'. It precisely distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_beaches (which searches for spots) and get_spot_conditions (which returns conditions).

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 implies this tool is for retrieving details for a known spot ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that conditions are better fetched via get_spot_conditions, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: results expose only name, category, approximate location, verification tier, and app links, while direct contacts remain on claimable profiles. This goes beyond annotations and provides transparency about data limitations.

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 clear paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists supported provider types. It is somewhat lengthy due to the extensive list, but each sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary 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?

Given 11 parameters, a 36% schema coverage, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the core behavior and result restrictions adequately. It mentions the language support and the types of providers, providing enough context alongside annotations for correct tool invocation.

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 36%, so the description should compensate. It adds general context about the query parameter (listing many examples) and mentions language support, but does not detail parameters like intent, radiusKm, or maxWindKmh. The description provides moderate additional meaning beyond 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 starts with 'Use for conversational requests for professionals near a destination' and lists many specific provider categories (surf schools, dive centers, rental services, etc.), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots which focus on locations rather than providers.

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 states the use case (searching for professionals near a destination) and notes that it supports multiple languages. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the detailed list of provider types gives strong contextual guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable context about output format ('compact results with BeachFinder links') and coordinate consent, but lacks details on rate limits or empty results.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema and many parameters, the description covers only basic usage. It lacks context on filtering parameters like radius, wind, water temperature, and country, which are important for precision. Adequate but incomplete for complex queries.

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 only 36% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. It mentions city/coordinates and ranking intents, but omits details on limit, radiusKm, maxWindKmh, minWaterTempC, country, and query.

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 'Find public beaches by city or consented coordinates' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_surf_spots by focusing on beaches and multiple ranking intents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_surf_spots or search_swim_spots. The description implies it's for general beach search, but doesn't exclude or direct to other tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool does not infer visibility or safety, which is a useful behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response structure.

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 sentence that is well front-loaded, stating what the tool does and what it does not do. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and a complex schema, the description provides almost no contextual guidance. It omits details on required parameters, parameter combinations, output format, or typical usage patterns. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of usage context.

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 only 36%, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level information, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The tool lists 11 parameters with no guidance on how to use them effectively.

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 finds mapped diving and snorkeling locations and explicitly excludes inferring visibility or safety. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_swim_spots and search_surf_spots by focusing on diving and snorkeling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_beaches or search_activity_providers. The only hint is 'without inferring visibility or safety', but this does not help an agent choose between related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'find guides', not disclosing traits like result structure or pagination. With annotations covering the basics, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the acronym 'GTA' is not explained, which could cause confusion. It earns its place but lacks full clarity.

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?

Given 11 parameters, an output schema, and 12 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain when to search guides vs. spots, what output to expect (despite output schema), or how parameters like intent or filter options work. The tool's complexity requires a more complete description.

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 description coverage is only 36%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage. However, the description only mentions 'localized' hints at geographic parameters but does not detail any of the 11 parameters, such as query, intent, or limit. No additional meaning is added beyond 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 it finds 'localized practical, destination, GTA and football travel guides' published by BeachFinder, which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_activity_providers, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools that search for specific spots or providers.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., data source, rate limits). It does not contradict 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 sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and front-loads the core action but omits important details.

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?

Given 11 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema description, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., city vs lat/lng, radiusKm role) or what the output contains beyond 'locations'.

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 only 36% (4 out of 11 parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't add meaning, e.g., for 'query' or 'intent'.

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 it finds 'mapped river and whitewater activity locations near a destination,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots. However, it could be more specific about the type of locations (e.g., put-ins, rapids).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_surf_spots or search_swim_spots. The description does not mention when to prefer coordinates vs city, or how the intent parameter affects results.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only 'when available' for planning signals, which is minimal. No contradictions, but limited added value.

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 sentence, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks structure and does not warrant additional detail given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 11 parameters and multiple siblings, the description is too short to provide sufficient context. Output schema exists, but the description does not reference it or clarify return values.

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 only 36%, so the description should compensate but does not. It adds no detail about the 11 parameters, their relationships, or how to use them effectively.

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 finds swimming locations with surf or wave relevance and planning signals, which identifies a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_swim_spots or search_beaches, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds that conditions are fetched only for top-ranked results, which is useful behavioral context not in 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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 11 parameters and low schema coverage, the minimal description leaves many parameters unexplained. However, the existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values.

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 low (36%), and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 11 parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 it finds beaches, lakes, bathing places, and public swimming locations, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_beaches and search_surf_spots by covering general swimming spots.

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 mentions that current conditions are fetched only for highest-ranked results, providing a context for efficiency. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_beaches, search_surf_spots).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that direct contact details are withheld, a significant behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Find published van and camping locations near beaches') and adds a key behavioral constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 11 optional parameters, the description provides no context on result structure, pagination, or how to effectively use the many filters. The agent lacks guidance on combining parameters or interpreting results, making it incomplete for a complex search tool.

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 coverage is low at 36%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their usage. It relies entirely on the schema descriptions, which partially cover some params but leave many undocumented. The description should compensate with parameter guidance but does not.

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 for van and camping spots near beaches, with the specific behavioral note about withholding contact details. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots.

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 implies use for vanlife or camping near beaches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_swim_spots or search_campgrounds. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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