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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the data source (FWC), the statewide deployment count, the returned fields, the closest-first ordering, and a safety caveat against navigation use.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then a dense but useful field list, then intended uses and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 seven optional parameters, the definition does a good job describing return fields and sort order. However, it never states that a location argument (lat/lon or place) is required in practice, nor what happens if none is supplied, which is an important gap for a zero-required-parameter 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 100%, so the schema itself documents all seven parameters. The description implies proximity ('near a spot'), distance sorting, and the meaning of depth/relief, but adds little parameter-specific syntax or constraint detail 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?

States a specific resource (Florida's public artificial reefs) and scope (near a spot, FWC's 4,519 statewide deployments), plus exactly what is returned: name, position, depth/relief, sunk material, year, distance, sorted closest first. No sibling tool covers artificial reefs, so the purpose is immediately distinguishable.

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 names intended use cases (fishing, diving, spearfishing) and one exclusion ('Not for navigation'). It does not name alternative sibling tools for those other activities, but the context is clear enough to route the agent.

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