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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns up to 5 results, includes a readAs field indicating which place was answered for, and notes each record carries its governing source and last-read date. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but for this tool that's minor.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is long and contains location-specific detail that may not earn its place for every agent (e.g., the South Fork off-leash dawn rule and the 49-beach count). It could be tightened while preserving the key usage and routing guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does list the main categories returned (dog rules, parking permit, car-free access, lifeguard hours, rip-current notes) plus source and last-read date. It also notes the result cap of 5 and the readAs disambiguator. The only gap is not spelling out a full response structure, but for a one-parameter lookup tool this is largely 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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'beach' parameter with examples. The description adds meaning by clarifying that town and hamlet names resolve (e.g., 'Amagansett, NY' and 'Sag Harbour'), and explains the readAs return field for ambiguity. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and example 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns one named beach (or all verified beaches in a town/hamlet) with answers about dog rules, parking permits, car-free access, lifeguard hours, and rip currents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming parking_permit_rules for broader permit needs, so an agent can tell what this tool covers without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: 'Call this for any dog question' and 'Also call it before saying anyone can just park at a beach.' It also names the alternative for the full permit map and non-resident day passes: use parking_permit_rules instead. This leaves little inference needed.

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