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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive safe-read behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include WoRMS Aphia ID and ITIS TSN cross-references and a species_code, useful context about what the call yields, but does not disclose pagination behavior or result-format details beyond the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return content. No filler or redundancy; every clause is informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it appropriately covers the lookup scope and cross-reference outputs. It is complete enough for a read-only search tool, though it never explicitly explains the relationship to survey.get_catch beyond a parenthetical hint.

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 all four parameters (limit, offset, common_name, scientific_name) are already documented. The description's 'by common or scientific name' merely restates the schema's name-matching semantics and adds no formatting or matching nuance (e.g., case sensitivity) beyond it.

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 (look up) and resource (species in the NOAA AFSC bottom-trawl groundfish survey), with the Alaska scope and the input modes (common or scientific name). It links to the survey_catch sibling via species_code, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the other noaa-fisheries-stats siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'survey species_code (for survey_catch)' implies this lookup feeds the survey.get_catch tool, giving an implied workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or direct naming of the sibling. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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