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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that data is published rather than live, that results carry source/freshness metadata, and that the agent should not treat output as a live clearance calculation.

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, front-loaded with the search modes, followed by the caveat and the units/return note. Little waste, though the units/directions sentence is dense and slightly cryptic out of context.

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, the description usefully notes that source/freshness metadata is returned and frames the data as published rather than live. The main remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is minor for an optional, defaulted field.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is a nested object, so the description must compensate. It explains 'q' as a name search and gives the bbox ordering (west,south,east,north) plus units (ft, kt, s, F, mi), but the 'limit' sub-parameter (default 20, max 100) is never mentioned.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search published bridges') and names both retrieval modes (by name or by west,south,east,north bbox). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling find_* POI tools, but the purpose 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?

It tells the agent bridge records are published, not a live clearance calculation, and to verify access/operating details with the facility — which implies this is not the right tool for real-time clearance. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions are given.

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