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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that only cams Swell Cabin actually opened and checked are returned (Surfline last), that no search links are included, and what verifiedPlaying, live, pinNote and the embed kinds mean. That is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one very long run-on sentence dense with nested parentheticals (embed kinds, network names, permission dates) that is hard to scan. The information earns its place, but the structure does not.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does: it defines verifiedPlaying, live, embed kinds (youtube/still/player/null), permission, pinNote, networks and search. An agent knows what it will receive and how to interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the framing that `spot` narrows to one of the town's spots. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening clause states a specific resource and scope: 'Live surf cams for a town or one of its surf spots,' which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling cam_now, so the agent must infer the split between the two cam tools.

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 one concrete routing hint — use `networks`/`search` for spots without a saved cam — and notes that only checked cams are listed. It never says when to prefer this over cam_now or surf_now, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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