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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds useful context beyond that: the dataset size and geographic coverage, and the shape of results (ids, today's headline conditions, photos, page links). It omits pagination/limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the corpus scope is front-loaded and the return summary follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 usefully summarizes return contents, and no parameters are required, so a bare query is valid. The only gap is the unexplained limit parameter and any result-cap behavior, which an agent would need when paginating.

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 50%: query has an example description while limit is undocumented. The description expands on query by listing the searchable facets (name, town, island, region, country), which adds meaning, but says nothing about limit or expected result counts, so it only marginally exceeds the schema 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 verb (Search) plus resource (beach resorts), scopes the corpus (1,400+ resorts across named regions), and enumerates the searchable facets (name, town, island, region, country). It is immediately distinguishable from the parallel sibling search_ski_resorts.

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?

The name and facets imply that this tool is for locating resorts, but the description never states when to use it versus siblings like beach_conditions, rank_beaches, better_nearby_beaches, or find_lodging, nor does it name any exclusion or alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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