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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: date-dependent output character (live+alerts for today, forecasts for days 0-15, climate outlooks beyond), which an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope before the metric list and temporal behavior, with no filler. The metric enumeration is long but each item conveys distinct returned content.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned payload (score with per-metric detail, sargassum, weather, waves, UV, crowds, hurricane risk, holidays) is exactly the missing information, and the temporal forecast/live distinction completes the picture for correct invocation.

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% with only 2 params, so the schema fully documents 'date' format/range and 'resort' as id-or-name. The description reinforces the one-resort/one-date constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 resource and scope: full conditions for one beach resort on one date, with an explicit enumeration of the returned metrics. It clearly reads as a superset tool versus narrow siblings like sargassum_forecast or tides, but it never names an alternative to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Provides temporal usage guidance ('For today, also live conditions and alerts. Days 0-15 are forecasts, later dates climate outlooks'), implying when a date is worth querying. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not versus siblings such as rank_beaches or better_nearby_beaches, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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