BeachFinder - beaches and live conditions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'using only documented facts and current available conditions,' clarifying data sourcing beyond 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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and constraints.

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?

The description covers the main use case and constraints, but omits explanations for optional parameters lang and intent. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but parameter guidance is incomplete for full understanding.

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%, yet the description only mentions the spotIds parameter. The lang and intent parameters are undocumented, leaving their purpose unclear despite being enums with defaults. This is a significant gap.

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's purpose: to compare two to five BeachFinder spot IDs using documented facts and current conditions. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are search or single-spot retrieval operations.

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 when to use the tool (when you have explicit spot IDs and want comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. The sibling list provides context, but direct guidance is lacking.

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, confirming safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying anonymity ('No user identity is returned') and that reports are 'active,' providing beyond-annotation context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant or verbose language. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The description covers the primary functionality and anonymity guarantee, but fails to guide parameter usage. Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, it is missing details on how to specify the spot or language.

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 2 parameters (lang with enum, spotId as UUID) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving the agent without 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 specifies the verb (Get), resource (anonymous aggregate of active BeachFinder community reports), and scope (for one spot). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on community reports, not general spot conditions or searches.

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 context (getting aggregate community reports) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spot_conditions or search tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those safety guarantees. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the types of signals (weather, wind, etc.) and clarifies that results are for 'current' conditions, which is a key temporal constraint. However, it does not disclose any potential rate limits or data freshness limitations, which would be beneficial for an agent selecting this tool.

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 efficiently conveys the essential purpose and scope. It lists the types of signals concisely without unnecessary detail. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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, 1 required) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explain the response format or confirm that the output schema covers the listed signals. Additionally, the omission of the lang parameter leaves a gap. For a tool with moderate complexity, a bit more detail on parameter usage would be appropriate.

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 compensate. It does explain that the spotId parameter identifies a 'BeachFinder spot ID,' which is helpful. However, it completely omits the lang parameter, which has an enum of 14 languages. The description does not mention that the response can be localized, leaving agents unaware of this capability. Given the low schema coverage, the description should document both parameters clearly.

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 gets current water, weather, wind, UV, wave and current planning signals for a specific BeachFinder spot ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('conditions for one spot'), and the scope ('current') distinguishes it from siblings like get_spot_details (static info) and get_community_conditions (community-reported).

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 the tool is for retrieving current conditions for a single spot, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist (e.g., requires a valid spotId). The sibling tools list suggests alternatives, but the description lacks comparative 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds 'stable' and 'public facts', clarifying the nature of the data beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 12 words, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and distinguishes from siblings, but lacks parameter explanations. Given the rich annotations and existence of output schema, it is minimally adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (spotId, lang). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'stable public facts and localized editorial content' for one spot ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are searches or 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?

Usage is implied: if you need details for a specific spot ID, use this tool. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context about the return format (owner verified, source backed, mapped, fields returned), which goes beyond 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?

Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence contributes 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 complexity of 11 parameters and low schema coverage, the description is adequate for a simple search but lacks guidance on parameter combinations or when to use which parameters. The output schema exists but description does not reference it.

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 (36%) with many parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explain parameter semantics or usage patterns (e.g., how to use lat/lng vs city, or query vs intent). It adds minimal value beyond the sparse 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 finds BeachFinder water and coastal activity providers, listing specific use cases (lessons, rentals, etc.) and what results contain. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific activities (surf, dive, swim) by being a general search.

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 finding activity providers but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like search_surf_spots or search_swim_spots. No alternatives are mentioned.

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 destructiveHint false. The description adds that it uses user-consented coordinates and returns compact results with links, which is consistent. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and key differentiators. No unnecessary 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?

While the description covers the primary use case, it lacks detail on parameter usage and does not fully address the complexity of 11 parameters and many sibling tools. Output schema exists so return values are covered.

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 description mentions the key parameters (city, lat/lng, intent) but does not describe the other 8 parameters like lang, limit, query, country, radiusKm, maxWindKmh, minWaterTempC. With only 36% schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 public beaches by city or coordinates and ranks them for various intents like swimming and surf. It distinguishes from siblings like search_surf_spots and search_swim_spots which are more specific.

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 explains using city or consented coordinates and defines ranking categories, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this general beach search versus more specific sibling tools like search_surf_spots or search_swim_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 a key behavioral constraint: 'without inferring visibility or safety', which is not in annotations. This provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without becoming verbose. 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?

Given 11 parameters, many siblings, and the existence of an output schema, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain how to use parameters (e.g., location filters, intent, limit) or what the output contains. Output schema may cover return values, but overall context is lacking.

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% (low), and the description does not mention any parameters or their meaning. With 11 parameters, the description should compensate by explaining usage (e.g., how to filter by location or intent), but it 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 it finds mapped diving and snorkeling locations, with a specific verb 'Find'. It explicitly distinguishes from inferring visibility or safety, and the name and title align with sibling tools like search_surf_spots, making the purpose 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 implies when to use (for dive/snorkel spots) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from siblings like search_beaches or search_swim_spots. No alternatives are listed.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it searches for guides. It does not describe any side effects, authorization needs, or result behavior, but 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 of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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, a low description coverage, and no output schema details provided (though it exists), the description is too terse. It fails to convey the full search capabilities, how parameters relate, or what results look like, leaving the agent underinformed 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 description coverage is only 36% (4 of 11 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining parameter roles or usage patterns, leaving many parameters (e.g., intent, country, radiusKm) undocumented in both the description and effectively 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 purpose: finding localized practical, destination, GTA, and football travel guides published by BeachFinder. However, it uses ambiguous terms like 'GTA' and 'practical' that may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity.

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 compared to sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds the term 'mapped' but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 is concise and front-loads purpose, but it lacks detail and could be more structured to include guidance or context.

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 many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, how to refine searches, or differentiate from similar tools.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters or how they relate to the search. It only vaguely mentions 'near a destination,' which does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Find mapped river and whitewater activity locations near a destination.' The verb 'find' and resource 'mapped river and whitewater activity locations' are specific and distinct 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?

Description implies usage by naming the activity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe, idempotent reads with open-world results. The description adds minimal behavioral context: 'current planning signals when available' hints at dynamic data, but does not detail any side effects or limitations beyond what annotations convey.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, sacrificing informativeness for 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?

Despite the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient given 11 parameters and low schema coverage. It fails to explain key aspects like location search, filters, or the nature of 'planning signals', leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding for proper 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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but provides zero parameter information. It does not mention any of the 11 parameters (e.g., lat, lng, city, query, intent), leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which itself lacks descriptions for most parameters.

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 'swimming locations with surf or wave relevance', which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like search_beaches or search_swim_spots by specifying surf/wave relevance, though the phrase 'swimming locations' could be slightly misleading as surf spots are typically not primarily for swimming.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_beaches, search_swim_spots, or search_dive_snorkel_spots. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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 they cover safe behavior. The description adds a key behavioral detail: 'Current conditions are fetched only for the highest-ranked results,' which informs the agent about uneven data freshness. 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding a key constraint in the second. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides a high-level purpose but omits details about how to use filtering parameters (e.g., intent, maxWindKmh). It is adequate for a simple search but incomplete for the complexity present.

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 description does not mention any parameters or their purpose. With schema description coverage at only 36%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters like query, intent, lat/lng, etc., but it fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 beaches, lakes, bathing places, and public swimming locations, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_beaches or search_surf_spots. The verb 'Find' combined with the variety of locations makes the purpose 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 implies that this tool is for general swimming spots but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_beaches or search_surf_spots. The note about current conditions being fetched only for top results provides some context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds the behavioral trait 'withholding direct contact details', which is not in annotations. However, it does not explain limits, auth requirements, or what 'withholding' entails precisely. 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too short to be informative. While it avoids fluff, the lack of detail means the sentence does not fully earn its place. It is front-loaded with the core action but missing critical context.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, many optional) and the existence of an output schema, the description should at least outline how to specify location (coordinates vs city) and what the intent filter does. It does not provide enough information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without inferred knowledge.

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 of 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description fails to compensate: it mentions no parameters at all, despite 11 parameters including location fields (lat/lng, city), filters (query, intent, country), and numeric conditions (radius, wind, water temp). This gives the agent little understanding of how to use them.

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's function: 'Find published van and camping locations near beaches'. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('van and camping locations'), and the phrase 'near beaches' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_surf_spots or search_swim_spots. The title 'Search vanlife spots' aligns well.

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 the many similar sibling tools (e.g., search_beaches, search_river_whitewater_spots). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The only contextual note is 'while withholding direct contact details', which is more behavioral than usage guidance.

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