Find dive windows near a place

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well. It calls out the forecast-planning-only limitation, the 'never a safety clearance' caveat, unit conventions, and the instruction to assess conditions on-site. This is specific, honest behavioral context beyond what the schema could convey.

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-loads the main purpose and output. It wastes little space, though 'always assess conditions at the water' somewhat restates the safety caveat established one sentence earlier. Overall, every major clause contributes context, but a slight redundancy keeps it from being perfectly clean.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates well by describing what results include: favorable and moderate windows, wave height, wind, timing, and site links. It also explains unit handling for US users and disclaiming safety, so the agent knows what to expect and how to frame output. Nothing critical is missing for the tool's intended purpose.

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?

The schema already describes day, near, and radius_km, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a little orientation through 'near {place} on {day}' and notes unit-suffixed fields such as wind_kn in knots, but it does not meaningfully explain lat/lng or otherwise compensate for the remaining schema coverage gap. This is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 states a specific verb-plus-resource: it finds ranked scuba-diving forecast windows near a place on a specific day. It also gives the exact user question it answers, including output categories (favorable and moderate windows) and site links, which makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like site_facts or 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 description communicates when to use the tool: when someone asks 'where can I dive near {place} on {day}?' and wants forecast planning information, not safety clearance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route the request appropriately.

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