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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a read-style lookup yielding times and tide levels, and it implies no side effects, but it does not discuss limitations, edge cases, or response format details. This is adequate but leaves room for more transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: the core output is front-loaded in bold, followed by relatable example questions and real-world use cases. Every sentence contributes value without repetition or filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and why it is useful. It does not specify the exact return structure or units, but for a simple tide-time lookup the level of detail is largely sufficient.

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 parameters station and date are already well documented. The description adds the context that the data is station-specific and answers 'today' questions, but it does not meaningfully enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool provides high tide and low tide times and tide levels for Korean tide stations, using specific terms like 고조(만조)·저조(간조). It is unambiguous about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as korea_tide_stations or the index-based 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?

The description gives concrete usage scenarios, such as answering 'When does the water go out?' or 'What time is high tide?', and positions the data as a basis for mudflat, fishing, and sea-separating plans. This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like korea_tide_stations.

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