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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the FWC inventory source, approximate result count, included county field, closest-first ordering, and the important caveat that live wait data is only available where boaters have reported it and so far only in Tampa Bay.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words, and the key scoping details are front-loaded: resource, geography, source, ordering, and data-quality caveat.

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 lookup tool with a fully described input schema, annotations covering safety behavior, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers scope, source, ordering, returned fields, and the limitation on live wait coverage.

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 lat, lon, and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds indirect meaning by saying results are 'closest first,' which ties lat/lon to proximity sorting, but it does not clarify the limit parameter or requiredness.

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 names a specific resource (public boat ramps), a precise geographic scope (anywhere in Florida), a source and size (FWC inventory, about 1,600), and the ordering (closest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fuel_docks, sandbars, and find_places.

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 phrase 'closest first' implies the tool is used for proximity-based lookup near a location, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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