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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: IOOS data is split across eleven regional servers, dataset ids are server-local, and the tool is authoritative for what each association publishes. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, keeping 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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: what it searches, what it is authoritative for, and how to sequence it against alternatives. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource before the routing advice.

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?

Covers purpose, discovery-to-handoff workflow, and the multi-server caveat that a 4-parameter enum-heavy tool needs. With no output schema, the description only partially signals what comes back (dataset ids and titles), but the schema's 100% coverage and examples compensate for the rest.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter-level detail beyond the 'dataset_id onward' hint; the meaningful semantics (node enum meanings, protocol routing to griddap/tabledap readers, blank query rejection) live in the schema, which already carries them.

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 (full-text search) and resource (US IOOS regional ERDDAP ocean observing datasets) and enumerates the concrete data families covered (buoys, tide gauges, gliders, HF radar, model grids). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the handoff — 'pass a dataset_id onward' to the grid/tabledap readers.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Start with this tool, then pass a dataset_id onward', plus an explicit when-not alternative — 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' with the reason (web results point at portal pages, not live dataset ids the sibling tools need). Nothing is left to inference about ordering relative to other tools.

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