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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is 'published, not a live clearance calculation,' the user must verify access with the facility, and results include 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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but the trailing 'Units: ft, kt, s, F, mi ...' and 'Bridge data is published, not a live clearance calculation' lines read as boilerplate mismatched to a restaurant search, diluting an otherwise tight 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?

For a finder tool with no output schema and a nested input, the description covers the search intent, the downstream get_poi_details chain, and the freshness/verification caveat. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly appears to be missing.

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% and the single parameter is a nested object, so the description carries real weight. It explains that search is 'by name or west,south,east,north bbox,' which clarifies the q and bbox sub-fields, but says nothing about the 'limit' sub-parameter or its defaults.

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 and resource: 'Search published waterfront restaurants by name or ... bbox.' The resource ('waterfront restaurants') is distinct enough from siblings like find_beaches or find_marinas that an agent can route correctly, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the follow-up workflow: 'Follow with get_poi_details using the returned ID for contacts, parking counts, permits and closure notices,' and adds a verification step. It gives clear context without naming a competing search tool or an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion.

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