Find a spot

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful non-structured behavior — the database is community-built with beach-orientation/wind-direction knowledge, and failed lookups silently fall back to geocoding. It stops short of saying what happens when neither source resolves the name.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary path (database) and appends the fallback, plus the routing directive. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 resolver whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the definition supplies the provenance of results and the resolution order. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what comes back (coordinates, canonical spot record, multiple matches), which matters for a lookup tool.

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 single 'query' parameter already carries examples ('Ouistreham', 'Tarifa Los Lances'). The description only restates the lookup-by-name semantics the schema already encodes, so baseline 3 applies — no syntax or matching-behavior detail is added.

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 and resource — resolve a named spot in the 'windext spot database' — and discloses the two-stage resolution path (database lookup, then geocoding fallback). This cleanly separates it from sibling spot_info (detail for a known spot) because the description frames find_spot as the discovery step.

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?

'Always call this first' is an explicit, directive usage instruction that establishes ordering relative to spot_info and spot_forecast. It lacks an explicit when-not condition, but the escape hatch (geocoding fallback) is stated, so an agent knows it can rely on this tool even for names outside the database.

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