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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond those by specifying the guide's content categories (how to get there, best points, species, baits, techniques), giving the agent a concrete picture of the returned information. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Detalhes de um local de pesca') and then enumerates the deliverable content. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the guide contains. Since there is no output schema, the listed content areas provide the necessary expectations, though it could have mentioned the overall return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the locationPath property already explained as the exact path from search_locations. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool returns details for a fishing spot, listing specific content areas (access, best spots, species, baits, techniques). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_locations, get_species, and get_technique by its focus on a single location's guide.

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 parameter description adds usage guidance by stating locationPath must be the exact value returned by search_locations, implying search_locations should be called first. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this getter.

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