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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful freshness caveat ('data is published, not a live clearance calculation') and mentions source/freshness metadata in the return, which are genuine behavioral traits beyond the annotations. The misplaced bridge sentence detracts but does not contradict 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and word count is low, but 'Bridge data is published, not a live clearance calculation' is irrelevant to a restaurant search, and the generic 'Units: ft, kt, s, F, mi; directions FROM' boilerplate does not apply to dining POIs, so not every sentence earns its 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does note it returns data plus source/freshness metadata, and it partially covers the search inputs. But with 0% schema coverage it leaves limit and the nested query object unexplained, and it provides no usage routing, so it is only minimally complete.

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 explains that search is by name or a west,south,east,north bbox, giving meaning to q and bbox that the bare schema lacks. However it ignores the limit parameter and does not clarify the nested query object structure, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (Search) and resource (published waterfront restaurants) plus the two search modes (by name or bbox), which differentiates it from the many find_* siblings by resource. It never explicitly names an alternative and the stray 'Bridge data is published' sentence introduces an off-topic concept that muddies an otherwise clear 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?

The only usage-ish guidance is 'Verify access and operating details with the facility,' which is a caveat rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when to prefer this over find_marinas, find_beaches, or other find_* tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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