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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: cache-only scope, the 18:00–10:00 local scoring window, the worst-hour conservative reading, the swell 0.70 / wind 0.30 weighting, and the cost profile (no topography download, two forecast calls).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then layered with cache scope, scoring method, empty-result handling, and cost. Mostly earns its space, though the aside 'swell is what makes a boat roll' is flavor that could be trimmed.

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 does explain the return semantics (per-night scores, empty result meaning) and the absence of a topography download. The main gap is that parameter behavior, especially radius_m, is left entirely unexplained.

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% and none of the three parameters (latitude, longitude, radius_m) has any schema-level documentation. The description says 'nearby' but never explains what radius_m controls, its units, or the coordinate format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: finds anchorages that are already analysed and re-scores them for comfort over three nights. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling `analyze_anchorage`, which is described as the tool for adding a new spot rather than reading cached ones.

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?

Explicitly addresses the when and when-not: it only returns spots in the shared cache, an empty result means nobody has analysed the area yet, and it names the alternatives (`analyze_anchorage` for a precise spot, the app to sweep the area). An agent can route correctly without inference.

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