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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behavior. It states a cost ($0.50), which is crucial behavioral info. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what other side effects exist. Since it's a GET-like tool, read-only is implied but not explicit.

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 description is very concise (3 items + cost) and front-loaded with key hazards. No wasted words. However, it is somewhat terse and lacks a clear verb phrase, which slightly reduces 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?

Given the tool has 1 enum parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main concern (hazards and cost). But it does not describe the return format or any additional details about the report, leaving some context missing.

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 100% (the island parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description does not add any new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists specific hazards (box jellyfish, rip currents, NOAA alerts) that clarify the tool's focus on ocean safety. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Get') or the resource (e.g., 'ocean safety report'). The verb is implied by the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_surf_conditions and get_weather by mentioning safety hazards.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_surf_conditions, get_weather). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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