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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: ambiguous matches return a candidate list rather than a single result, and small/low-data parks are silently unavailable with no page. Return-field and data-source provenance (CAPAD 2024, licences) also adds context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and returned facts come first, then the partial-name/state narrowing, then the edge cases. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on sentence could be broken up for scannability.

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 enumerates the returned fields and their provenance, explains matching and narrowing behavior, and discloses the no-page failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret results without opening anything else.

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 coverage is only 50% (the `state` parameter has no schema description), and the description compensates by enumerating the accepted values (wa, qld, nsw, vic, sa, tas, nt, com for Commonwealth waters) and explaining that `name` accepts partial matches. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema provides, though minor details like case handling or default behavior remain unstated.

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 and resource ('Get the facts about an Australian marine park from its Biohotspot page') and enumerates the returned content (area, IUCN categories, zones, habitats, blue carbon, pressures, sources/licences, address). This clearly separates it from siblings like look_in_area or understand_area, which operate on generic areas rather than marine-park Biohotspot pages.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: pass part of the park name, use `state` to narrow, several matches return a list to choose from, and parks under 10 km² or with insufficient open data have no page. It stops short of explicitly contrasting against alternative area tools, but the guidance for calling it correctly is clear.

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