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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add beyond that -- and it does: the output is verbatim NOAA text with no editorial safety judgment, and coverage is limited to Florida waters. It doesn't address what happens for a point outside those waters, which is the main remaining unknown.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: scope first, contents second, input options third, caveat last. No restatement of the title, no filler, and the caveat is placed where it will actually be read.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well -- advisories, forecast periods, nearest tide station -- in a tool that is otherwise simple (3 optional params, no nesting). Only the out-of-coverage/error behavior is unstated.

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 per-parameter descriptions are already handled. The description still adds real value the schema cannot: it explains that zero parameters are actually required in practice only because you must supply one of the two input routes (lat/lon pair or place), and that `place` accepts a boat_ramps name or place_id.

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?

Names the specific source (NOAA), the resource (marine forecast and tides), and the exact geographic scope (Florida Gulf, Atlantic, Keys, Biscayne Bay, Lake Okeechobee), plus the concrete payload: advisories, next forecast periods in NOAA's own words, and nearest tide station. An agent can distinguish this from live_conditions, inlet_watch, or beach_flags without opening any 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 states the two input routes -- a position or a ramp name from boat_ramps -- and explicitly rules out a whole class of question ("it does not say whether it's safe to go"), which routes safety judgments elsewhere. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for safety or for near-real-time observations, so it lacks full when-not/alternative routing.

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