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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: overlapping source records are not a unique verified surf-break count, directory locations lack verified orientation/preference, and returned metadata covers source/freshness. These caveats meaningfully help the agent interpret results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence is a run-on jumble mixing inclusion counts, model outlooks, and data caveats. The trailing units/metadata line is useful but adds to a slightly disorganized feel.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return metadata and units, and it discloses key model limitations. However, the significant parameter-level documentation gap (region enum, q, forecastOnly) leaves an agent guessing about valid filter inputs.

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% for a nested query object with five documented-nowhere properties (q, limit, offset, region, forecastOnly). The description only addresses offset/limit pagination; q, the region enum values, and forecastOnly remain undocumented, so it does not 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List California surf locations") and enumerates what the records carry: source links, coordinate roles, and forecastSupported flags. It is clearly a directory-listing tool, though it does not sharply differentiate itself from siblings like list_spots or get_spot beyond the California/surf scoping.

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 gives one useful routing hint ("Use a forecastSupported ID with get_california_surf"), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance for the list itself, nor a clear statement of when NOT to use it versus list_spots or search_pois.

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