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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope context beyond that – it aggregates three distinct signal types across the spot channel rather than returning one metric – but says nothing about recency windows, volume limits, ordering, or what an empty spot looks like. Useful, but the behavioral picture is still partial.

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 scope ('TOUT le signal communautaire récent') is front-loaded in caps, followed by the enumeration and then the usage trigger – a sensible inverted-pyramid order. It is a single long sentence built from em-dashes and parentheticals, which is dense but does not waste words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is already documented, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description only needs to establish scope and routing, which it does. With one required parameter and no enums, the remaining gap is minor: no mention of how 'récent' is bounded or how much data comes back.

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 0% for the single required spot_name, so the schema alone gives no format guidance. The description compensates by supplying a concrete example value ('Tarifa'), which tells the agent the expected granularity and casing of a spot name. That is real added meaning over the bare string type.

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 states a specific verb and resource (retrieve ALL recent community signal for a spot) and enumerates exactly what that signal comprises: shaka votes, recorded wingfoil/surf sessions, and rider messages in the spot channel. It implicitly carves itself apart from get_spot_conditions and get_spot_chat by rejecting the 'isolated numeric signal' framing, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 an explicit trigger with a quoted user-question pattern ('y a-t-il de l'activité/du monde/du wingfoil à [spot] ?') and a clear exclusion ('pas seulement pour un signal chiffré isolé'), which steers agents away from narrow numeric queries. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use instead for pure conditions or pure chat.

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