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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: data is "published, not a live clearance calculation," callers should "verify access and operating details with the facility," and it "Returns data and source/freshness metadata." These caveats about data staleness go beyond the annotations.

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 search action and follow-up, but the appended "Units: ft, kt, s, F, mi; directions FROM" line reads as boilerplate largely irrelevant to a ramp search, and the bridge-clearance sentence is tangential. Some sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape ("data and source/freshness metadata"), a downstream tool, and data-reliability caveats. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, it is nearly complete, though the limit parameter and the odd units line leave minor 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%, so the description must compensate. It documents the two main inputs by explaining name search and the bbox order ("west,south,east,north"), which is genuinely useful format detail absent from the schema. It omits the limit field, so not perfect.

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+resource: "Search published boat ramps by name or ... bbox." The resource (boat ramps) is inherently distinct from the many find_* siblings (find_marinas, find_piers, find_anchorages), so an agent can identify it. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those neighbors, 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?

Gives a clear next step — "Follow with get_poi_details using the returned ID for contacts, parking counts, permits and closure notices" — which routes the agent through a workflow. It also advises verifying details with the facility. It lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., ramps vs marinas), so not a 5.

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