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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description needn't repeat safety details. It adds genuine value by describing what comes back (drive time, miles, a line about each) and by noting springs are included alongside beaches. It says nothing about result ordering or fallback when an airport has no nearby beach.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return contents, then the when-to-use clause. The long airport code list is bulky but each code prevents a bad call, so it earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the unit of ranking (drive time). Combined with the full input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as unknown airport codes or empty results.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating the 18 valid Florida airport codes, which is more than the schema's single example ('MCO') and directly supports correct input selection. lang and limit are left entirely to the schema, which is fine given their complete descriptions and enum.

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 verb and resource: from a named Florida airport list, return the nearest beaches and springs by drive time with miles and a short blurb. The scope (airport-to-water drive times) is distinct from every sibling tool, which cover conditions, tides, and planning rather than airport proximity.

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 an explicit triggering scenario: 'when a visitor asks how fast they can be in the water after landing, or which beach is closest to an airport.' It doesn't name a sibling alternative or an exclusion case, but with such disparate siblings that omission costs little.

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