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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value on top: data is published rather than live, and results carry source/freshness metadata — useful for an agent reasoning about staleness. The irrelevant bridge sentence is noise but not a contradiction.

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 operation and filter syntax are front-loaded in one strong sentence, and the units line is compact. But the bridge/clearance sentence does not earn its place for an inlet-search tool and reads as leftover boilerplate, diluting an otherwise tight paragraph.

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 takes on return-value duty and does so adequately by naming 'data and source/freshness metadata' and the units. Combined with the facility-verification caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the confusing bridge reference is a minor completeness risk.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and a nested query object, the description must carry the burden, and it does for the most part: it explains the bbox string as 'west,south,east,north' and q as a name filter, neither of which the schema documents. The 'limit' parameter is left unexplained, and the units/direction statement is only loosely tied to params.

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 inlets') with the two supported filters (name, bbox). An agent can distinguish it from list_bridges or find_marinas by resource. However, the stray 'Bridge data is published, not a live clearance calculation' sentence muddies the purpose and suggests copy-paste from a bridge tool.

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?

It gives an important caveat ('Verify access and operating details with the facility') and disclaims live clearance applicability, which implies reconnaissance-only use. But it never states when to prefer this over the parallel find_* siblings (find_anchorages, find_marinas) or whether results are paginated, so the when/when-not guidance is only implied.

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