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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the data-quality caveat that unverified facilities lack coordinates and that openings/amenities need operator confirmation, plus the return of source/freshness metadata. That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though nothing is said about rate limits or result ordering.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the 'Units: ft, kt, s, F, mi; directions FROM' sentence appears to be boilerplate with no evident relevance to a facility directory and is left unexplained, costing space without adding clarity.

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, a nested parameter object, and zero schema coverage, the description should carry more weight than it does. It adequately covers the return shape at a high level (data plus source/freshness metadata) but leaves the query parameters and result semantics unexplained.

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 parameter is a nested query object with four inner fields (q, limit, county, offset), none of which are explained. The description only gestures at pagination ('Paginated') and never clarifies what 'q' matches or how county filtering works, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource ('State Parks boating-facility source records') and its paginated, dated nature, so an agent knows it retrieves a directory rather than performing a search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_california_places or find_marinas, which keeps it 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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over the many list_* / find_* / get_california_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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