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

The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile is already carried by annotations, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds full-text search behavior, catalogue scope, and source authority, but no operational detail such as result limits or pagination; the latter lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 and front-loaded purpose; no filler. There is minor redundancy between "the other tools in this pack need" and "every other tool takes a dataset_id from these results," but the emphasis is purposeful and the description stays compact.

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 search tool with a rich schema and safety annotations, the description gives the catalogue scope, source authority, and relationship to all dependent sibling tools. It does not specify exact return shape, but its statement that results are dataset IDs used by other tools is sufficient context for selecting and invoking it.

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 each parameter including defaults, enums, and example values, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. It adds the useful framing that results supply dataset IDs, but does not materially extend the schema's parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: full-text search of NOAA CoastWatch's ERDDAP catalogue for ocean satellite and buoy datasets, and lists concrete domains. It also distinguishes the tool from web search and positions it as the source of dataset IDs for the sibling tools.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit invocation rule, and "PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH" names the alternative it should be chosen against. The note that every other tool takes a dataset_id from these results gives a clear before/after workflow without requiring the agent to infer it.

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