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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It describes the output (wave height, period, etc.), which indicates what the tool returns, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or safety aspects (e.g., read-only nature). The behavioral information is limited to the output content, not broader behavioral traits.

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 packs a lot of information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's scope and key outputs.

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?

The description gives a good overview of the output fields but lacks details on input parameters and usage context. Given that the tool is relatively simple, the description is adequate for understanding its overall function, but it leaves gaps regarding parameter meanings and any constraints, making it only partially complete.

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 schema description coverage is very low (only 1 out of 3 parameters has a description, i.e., 33%). The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'date', 'limit', or 'place' beyond the single hint for 'place' in the schema. Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations, parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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's purpose: it provides a surf index for Korea, detailing wave height, period, water temperature, wind, recommended skill level, and overall assessment per surf point. It explicitly mentions 'surfing' which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (beach, fishing, mudflat, scuba, seaparting).

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. The description implies it is for surf-related information, but it does not mention any conditions for selection or provide contrast with sibling tools. No 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements are present.

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