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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: unavailable states, preserved source sample dates, and return of source/freshness metadata. It is dragged down by a 'satellite clarity vs dive visibility' sentence that seems unrelated to a king tide tool and adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 and short overall, with the units line as a compact reference. The out-of-place 'satellite clarity' sentence spends words on a topic irrelevant to king tides, keeping it out of the top tier.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the units and metadata note give reasonable coverage. It still leaves gaps on how to obtain a valid spot and what the forecast actually returns, and one sentence appears copied from another domain.

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 'query.spot' with a pattern and length constraints that are never explained. The description's 'verified spot' adds only a sliver of meaning and does not convey the expected ID format or the nested-object shape.

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 resource (king tide forecast) and a scoping condition ('for a verified spot'), which is clearer than a bare verb+noun. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tides (or get_forecast), leaving the agent to guess which tide/forecast tool applies.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'For a verified spot' hints at a precondition but never says how to obtain a verified spot or when king tides differ from regular tides.

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