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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns warnings currently in effect and lists example types (gale, storm, small craft), but does not disclose return format, freshness, or any other behavioral constraints beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the resource, scope, and example types efficiently.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete. It could optionally note how warnings are returned or when results may be empty, but no output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for lat and lng, so parameter meaning is fully documented there. The description's phrase 'at a point' aligns with those parameters but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource (marine warnings) and scope (for the marine forecast area at a point), with examples of warning types. It clearly differs from siblings like tides or water temperature, though it does not explicitly contrast with marine_forecast, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marine_forecast. The purpose implies retrieving active warnings for a point, but no when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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