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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the 8-day data staleness window, the exact severity vocabulary returned, and the 'never says a beach is safe' liability caveat. It does not mention rate limits or data-refresh timing.

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-loads the resource and time window, then the input modes, then the output and the caveat - a logical order with no filler. The single long first sentence is dense but every clause carries information.

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 does the work of explaining return shape: nearest sites, FWC's own severity words, sample day, miles away, plus a spoken sentence. Combined with full schema coverage this is enough to call the tool correctly; only data freshness and empty-result behavior are unspecified.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: zero-argument behavior returns the statewide picture, and place accepts either FWC sample-site fragments or boat-ramp names. The Greeks-style example already lives in the schema; radius default/max is left to 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?

Names a concrete resource (FWC Karenia brevis water samples), a time window (last 8 days) and what comes back (closest sites, FWC severity wording, sample day, distance). An agent can tell it apart from generic condition tools by the 'FWC's own water samples' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives three concrete invocation modes - a position, an FWC sample site or boat ramp name, or nothing for statewide - which is clear operating context. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over beach_flags or beach_water, so no explicit alternatives are offered.

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