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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a list of returned metrics, which largely duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral context such as coverage, survey scope, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, identifying the resource and the key returned metrics. It is efficient, though the enumerated metric list is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 annotations and an output schema both present, the definition is close to sufficient, but it omits the one thing an agent genuinely needs: where species_code comes from and how this tool relates to survey.search_species. Otherwise an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 limit, offset, hauljoin and species_code are all documented in the schema itself. The description names species_code but adds no new semantics (e.g. provenance of the code or valid ranges) 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NOAA AFSC groundfish survey catch records') scoped by species_code, which distinguishes it from the landings tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with its closest sibling, survey.search_species, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and critically no hint that the required species_code must come from survey_species. The agent is left to discover the sibling dependency on its own.

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