Facts about a specific dive site

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

The description discloses that the data is public and factual, that the scope is a single named site, and that metric fields are unit-suffixed — useful behavioral details beyond the schema. It does not cover errors, missing-site behavior, or access concerns, but for a simple public fact lookup, most important behavior is transparent enough.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the fact categories, and a format note without padding. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description lists the main content categories effectively. It does not explicitly explain behavior for unknown site names or how a page link is returned, keeping it complete but not exhaustive.

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% and the only parameter 'site' is already described as 'Site name or slug', so the description adds little meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'named dive site' is consistent but does not deepen the parameter semantics.

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 names the specific resource (one named dive site) and the concrete facts returned: depths, difficulty, shore/boat access, hazards, entry and exit notes, and a page link. This makes the tool clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which cover windows, timing, species, and 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?

It establishes the use case: looking up static public facts for a single named dive site, which is different from the siblings' time-based or region-based queries. It does not explicitly say when to use it instead of an alternative, but the context is clear enough for moderate guidance.

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