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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important dataset boundary (only published trail objects) and states that results carry permanent sat-identifiers. It does not mention result caps, ranking or pagination behavior, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is searched, what is returned and why it matters, then the exclusion. No filler and the scope constraint is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, trigger, output identity, and explicit out-of-scope cases.

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 coverage is 100% for the single query parameter, and the description's examples (island name, pier, vessel, POI category) largely mirror the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries parameter meaning.

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 (search) and an enumerated resource set (stages, trail, ferry piers, vessels, reports, POIs) bounded to the Stockholm Archipelago Trail dataset. An agent can immediately tell this is an identifier-lookup search, not a general search, and can distinguish it from place_details or fetch.

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 an explicit trigger condition (user names or describes a place, stage, pier, vessel or POI category and you need the identifier before calling another tool) and an explicit exclusion (general Sweden/Stockholm travel, gear, weather questions are outside the dataset). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered, though no sibling is named individually.

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