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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: that results are published rather than live-calculated, that it returns source/freshness metadata, and the unit/direction conventions (ft, kt, s, F, mi; directions FROM). The off-topic 'Bridge data' clause is noise but does not contradict the safety 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 core purpose, then caveats, then units, which is sensible ordering. The 'Bridge data is published, not a live clearance calculation' sentence is irrelevant to a reef finder and does not earn its place, dragging down an otherwise efficient definition.

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, and the description partly compensates by noting it returns data plus source/freshness metadata along with unit conventions. The stray bridge/clearance sentence, however, risks misleading an agent about what this tool actually returns, leaving the definition short of fully self-contained.

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 must carry the load; it does clarify that the name filter maps to the string query and that bbox is west,south,east,north, which the schema does not state. It omits the limit parameter and its 1-100 range, so compensation is only partial.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (search) and resource (published reefs) with two filter modes (name, bbox), which an agent can distinguish from find_anchorages/find_beaches/find_wrecks by resource name. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate why an agent would pick this over a sibling finder. The trailing 'Bridge data' sentence muddies the resource slightly.

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?

'Verify access and operating details with the facility' and the freshness caveat imply this is reference/directory data rather than a live operational source. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives (e.g., get_poi, search_pois), leaving the agent to infer context.

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