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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does reveal output granularity ("hourly and daily data"), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about which of lat/lon or port is needed, what happens when neither is supplied, the forecast horizon defaults, data source, or failure behavior for open-ocean coordinates.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. It is efficiently written, though the space saved could have been spent on the missing lat/lon versus port disambiguation.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what data comes back but leaves the calling contract ambiguous. An agent still cannot determine from the definition alone whether it must supply a port slug, coordinates, or both.

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%, so lat, lon, days (1-7, default 3), and port are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as whether port overrides lat/lon or what units the coordinates use — baseline 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?

"Get ocean and wave forecast" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the quantities returned (wave height, swell, sea state on Douglas scale). It is clearly distinct from get_tides, get_weather, and get_radar by domain, though the description never explicitly draws that line.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_weather, get_tides, get_conditions, or get_observations. It also gives no guidance on choosing between the lat/lon path and the port path, despite zero required parameters making that choice non-obvious.

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