Best time of year to dive a destination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It responsibly discloses that data is historical, not forecast, and requires citing the linked page. Still, it does not mention potential limitations like insufficient historical data, ambiguous destination names, or how 'favorable' is defined, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core concept at the beginning, then adds examples, data scope, and a citation instruction. No words feel wasted; the extra context fits naturally into one sentence.

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 single-parameter informational tool, the description covers inputs, outputs, limitations, and the citation requirement. It lacks an output schema and doesn't detail the return format, but the content described ('share of days', water temperature, marine-life windows) is enough for an agent to judge the tool's suitability.

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 0% and the only parameter is just a string named 'destination.' The description compensates somewhat by explaining it can be a country or famous destination and gives three examples, but it does not clarify exact name formats, case sensitivity, or whether destinations like 'Red Sea' are countries. This is helpful but incomplete.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: month-by-month climatology for a single destination, with examples (Komodo, Cozumel, Red Sea) and the output content (favorable days, water temperature, marine-life windows). It does not use a strong imperative verb like 'get' or 'calculate,' but the purpose is unmistakable and generally distinct from siblings like top_dive_regions.

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 emphasis on 'ONE destination' and 'never a forecast' establishes clear context and explicit when-not cases, ruling out multi-destination comparisons and future predictions. However, it does not explicitly name or route to sibling tools such as top_dive_regions or species_seasonality, so the guidance is contextual rather than fully differential.

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