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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely extra context: the data is published rather than a live clearance calculation, and results carry source/freshness metadata. That freshness caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey. The stray bridge sentence is noise but does not contradict anything.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and short, but the definition is padded with two boilerplate lines: a bridge/clearance note that is irrelevant to a beach tool, and a unit/direction convention line. Roughly a third of the text does not serve this tool.

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 give some return-value context (data plus source/freshness metadata), but it never describes the shape or fields of a beach result, nor the limit/pagination behavior implied by the nested query object. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the single top-level param nests q, bbox and limit, so the description must carry the load. It usefully defines the bbox ordering (west,south,east,north) and that search is by name, but never mentions the limit parameter or its default/max, leaving half the usable surface undocumented.

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 (search) and resource (published beaches) plus the two accepted lookup modes (name or west,south,east,north bbox), so an agent can distinguish it from find_anchorages, find_marinas, find_inlets and the other find_* siblings by resource alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative is named among the many find_* tools. "Verify access and operating details with the facility" is a disclaimer about data trustworthiness, not routing guidance for the agent.

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