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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and 'spots this server covers' is consistent with that closed-world read-only profile. The description adds the useful fact that it returns spot ids, but does not disclose pagination or that the default limit of 25 caps results, which slightly undercuts the 'list everything' phrasing.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the searchable keys and ending on the actionable default behavior. The parenthetical examples are short and directly reduce ambiguity rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return type (spot ids), and the follow-up tool is named. The remaining gap is the unmentioned limit/pagination behavior on a 2-parameter tool with a capped default.

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 only 50%; the description thoroughly amplifies the documented 'query' parameter with examples ('Oahu', 'California', 'Bali') and the empty-string behavior. However the undocumented 'limit' parameter (default 25, max 200) is not addressed anywhere, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Find the surf spots') plus the accepted lookup keys (name, id, area, country). It distinguishes itself from the sibling surf_get_spot_status by positioning itself as the id-producing search step that feeds that tool.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule ('Leave query empty to list everything') and explains the workflow linkage to surf_get_spot_status. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as when to use a status lookup instead of a search, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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