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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output fields but does not disclose units, coordinate format, data source, or potential limitations. This is a thin behavioral profile for a tool with no annotation support.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key output fields. It is efficient, though it achieves conciseness by omitting important operational details.

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 lookup tool, the description is incomplete: it omits the required coordinate format for q, units of wave height/temperature, and any data-source caveats. The presence of an output schema helps with return structure, but not with how to form the request correctly.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'q' and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'at coords,' which indicates q relates to coordinates but does not specify whether q expects latitude/longitude, a place name, or a specific delimiter format.

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 identifies the resource (marine weather) and the specific data returned (wave height/period/direction, sea temperature at coordinates). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but the intent is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 'weather' and 'spaceweather' tools by subject matter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'weather' or 'spaceweather', and no mention of input format prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'at coords,' leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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