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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the exact three-state verdict vocabulary, the meaning of 'stale' and how old values can be, the distinction between notice-based advisories and reading-based counts, publication delays, and the strong instruction to never imply a beach is currently safe. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence earns its place by preventing a serious misuse: verdict vocabulary, staleness, advisory basis, sampling delays, and citation. The 'IMPORTANT' marker and caps emphasize critical constraints without padding.

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 the tool's complexity, the absence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned, the meaning of each verdict state, how to interpret dates, and what conclusions the agent may or may not draw. No critical calling information appears to be missing.

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 single parameter 'beach' is already fully documented in the schema with filtering options and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds relevant domain context about beaches and municipios but does not meaningfully extend the 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 names a specific resource (Puerto Rico beach water quality), the exact data returned (Enterococcus counts, advisories, municipios, sample dates), and distinct sub-sources (DRNA notices and volunteer-lab samples). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools by resource and content.

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 usage context is strongly implied by the first sentence and the detailed caveats about advisories and safety statements. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over siblings like get_conditions, get_water_status, or get_by_municipality, nor does it state when not to use it.

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