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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the data is published rather than a live clearance calculation and that 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 front-loaded and the caveats are brief. The sentence about bridge data is potentially irrelevant to wrecks and slightly confusing, but overall the description is compact.

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 and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should carry more detail. It covers the safety/published-data caveat and mentions source/freshness metadata, but omits limit behavior, pagination, and basic return shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that q searches by name and that bbox is ordered west,south,east,north, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or result-size behavior.

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 wrecks') and gives the two search modes (name or bbox). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_derelict_vessels or find_dive_sites, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage through 'by name or ... bbox' and adds a caution to verify access details with the facility. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many find_* and get_* siblings.

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