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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned record, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown slug or any failure mode.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, with every listed field earning its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully enumerates what the record contains, which is the main completeness need for a read-one tool whose annotations carry the safety profile. Only the invalid-slug/error case and slug provenance are 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema documents `slug` adequately. The description never mentions the slug parameter or adds format/source guidance (e.g., where to get valid slugs), so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('one dive site') and enumerates the record's contents (description, photo with credit, protected status, marine-welfare guidance). The singular 'one dive site' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_dive_sites, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that a slug must first be obtained (e.g., from list_dive_sites), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the singular-record framing versus the list sibling.

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