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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: data is 'published' (not live), users should verify access with the facility, and the response carries source/freshness metadata. The only blemish is the confusing 'bridge data...not a live clearance calculation' line, which reads as copy-paste noise for a ramp tool.

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 compact and front-loads the search scope, and the units line is efficient shorthand. But the middle sentence about bridge clearance data is irrelevant to this tool and consumes budget without earning its place, hurting overall structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note about returning data plus source/freshness metadata is helpful. However, for a tool with a nested parameter object and 0% schema coverage, it omits pagination/limit behavior and the nested structure, leaving an agent to infer how to constrain result counts.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain that search is by name ('q') or bbox and even gives the bbox ordering (west,south,east,north), which is real added value. But it never mentions the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 100) or the nested 'query' wrapper, leaving one of three parameters 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search published boat ramps') with scope ('by name or west,south,east,north bbox'), which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like find_marinas or find_piers. However, the stray sentence about 'Bridge data' is irrelevant to boat ramps and muddies the otherwise clean statement of purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this to locate boat ramps by name or area. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no sibling alternative is named (contrast find_marinas, find_fuel_docks, etc. which all look similar).

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