Submit or correct a spot card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: cards enter status 'community' pending moderator verification, and corrections to verified spots are queued for review, plus licence/privacy terms. It does not explain how a 'correction' is matched to an existing spot, which matters given idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the gating rule, then moderation state and licensing. Every sentence carries information; the trailing 'Licence CC BY-SA, no personal data' fragment is terse but useful.

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?

Covers purpose, preconditions, moderation consequence and licensing, which is solid for a mutation tool. But with 18 params, no output schema and low schema coverage, gaps remain: how a correction is targeted (no ID parameter), duplicate handling, and what is returned on success or review-queueing.

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 description adds zero parameter meaning for an 18-parameter tool. With schema description coverage only at 33%, the description was the place to explain the undocumented fields (season, rules, hazards, tide_notes, launch_notes, facing_source, country), and it does not.

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+resource ('Add a spot to the open windext database') and covers the dual mode ('or correct an existing one'). None of the siblings (find_spot, spot_info, spot_forecast, ride_windows, tides, list_models) perform writes, so an agent can route here without confusion, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: 'Only call after the user has confirmed the facts.' That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of 5 because it never says to check for an existing spot first (find_spot) or when not to submit.

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