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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive query. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses the exact outputs (signal openings, scheduled openings, closures, clearance rules), which helps an agent know what to expect without an output schema.

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 core purpose and return details are front-loaded. The long parenthetical list of regions is dense but informative for coverage expectations. Most sentences earn their place, though the regional list could be trimmed without losing much.

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 six optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it explains invocation modes and enumerates the return information an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two primary query modes—give a position for the closest bridges or give a bridge name—which clarifies how lat/lon/name are meant to be used together. It also mentions 'closed clearance,' loosely connecting to the boat_height_ft parameter.

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 states a specific resource (Florida drawbridge openings) and exactly what information is returned: signal openings, next scheduled opening, rush-hour closures, call-ahead hours, closed clearance, and the rule. It is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, none of which cover drawbridges.

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?

It gives clear usage context: supply a position to find the closest bridges or a bridge name to look one up. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended invocation patterns are unambiguous.

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