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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context beyond annotations: an interpretation caveat about empty reports and a note that the response includes source/freshness metadata, which matters given no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a caveat and a units/return note. No filler, though the units string is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile and mentions return metadata. However, with 0% schema coverage on a nested query object, the omission of bbox/category semantics leaves an agent guessing at invocation details.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it never explains the nested query's bbox or category fields. The units line ('ft, kt, s, F, mi') hints at measurement units but does not clarify the bbox format or what category values are valid.

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+resource: satellite sea temperature fronts from a published agency dataset. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_gulf_stream, get_currents, and get_tides. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The caveat that 'empty reports do not establish safe conditions' is an interpretation warning rather than routing guidance, so usage remains largely inferred.

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