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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is low; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by flagging that fuel prices and current bridge clearance are unverified, and that results carry source/freshness metadata. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

Four terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the purpose. The unit/direction legend is cryptic shorthand but compact and non-redundant.

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 partially covers returns ('data and source/freshness metadata') and useful data-quality caveats and units. It still omits bbox format, valid category values, result ordering, and pagination, which an agent needs for a 0%-coverage nested schema.

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% across four nested parameters (q, bbox, cats, limit), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies cats ('comma-separated category list'); the bbox format, q matching behavior, and limit semantics are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('Search public marine POIs') and scopes it to public data. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many category-specific siblings (find_marinas, find_beaches, find_fuel_docks) or from get_poi/list_spots, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this generic search beats a specialized finder.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite ~90 siblings including find_* tools that clearly overlap. The 'cats' hint implies a category-filtered search but never says to prefer it over find_beaches or get_poi.

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