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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: data is 'published, not a live clearance calculation,' the agent should verify details with the facility, and the response carries source/freshness metadata.

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 core search behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, with caveats and units following. It is tightly sized, though the 'Bridge data' sentence reads as leftover context that is not clearly about marinas.

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 state what returns (data plus source/freshness metadata) and supplies a shared units legend. Coverage of query semantics is good, though the 'limit' parameter remains 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies the bbox ordering (west,south,east,north) and the name-search mode, but never explains the 'limit' parameter or its defaults, leaving part of the nested schema 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 marinas), plus the two query modes (name or bbox). It is clearly distinct from resource-specific siblings like find_anchorages or find_piers, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The 'Verify access and operating details with the facility' caveat implies some care is needed, but it doesn't route the agent between this tool and the other find_* tools.

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