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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data returned (water temp, wave height, etc.) but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, how filtering by date/place works, whether pagination is involved, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the data fields it returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and gets to the point. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical usage context (like how to select parameters), but for what it covers, it is appropriately sized.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial context. It only lists data categories without explaining parameter interactions, the meaning of '종합 판정' (overall assessment), or any example usage. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 only 33% (only 'place' has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for 'date' or 'limit' parameters, nor does it clarify their purpose, formats, or constraints. It completely fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents with insufficient information to correctly fill these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool provides a Korean beach index with specific metrics (water temperature, wave height, air temperature, open/close status, and overall assessment). It identifies the domain as 'beach' and the specific data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on fishing, surfing, etc., though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is more than a tautology of the tool name.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (korea_fishing_index, korea_surfing_index, etc.). It only describes the output content, not the context of use, selection criteria, or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer when to call this based solely on the name, which is insufficient.

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