get_beach_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaningful auto-geocoding behavior ('Automatically geocodes any beach name worldwide'), which is real operational context, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or whether the geocoded coordinates are echoed back. For a read-only conditions tool the risk is low, but several behavioral questions remain unanswered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The capability and the returned data are front-loaded, and the geocoding convenience note follows as a secondary but genuinely useful clarification for input handling.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (rip current risk, waves, swell, wind, temperature, UV, safety score). The main residual gap is the absence of any sibling-routing guidance given the overlapping get_surf_forecast and get_uv_forecast tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents beach_name and the optional latitude/longitude fallback. The description adds only marginal value by clarifying that free-text names worldwide are acceptable ('just say Waikiki'), which reinforces but does not extend the schema's own examples.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get comprehensive beach safety conditions') and enumerates the exact data returned (rip current risk, waves, swell, wind, temperature, UV, safety score), so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_surf_forecast or get_uv_forecast, which overlap on waves and UV respectively, leaving the agent to infer that this is the broad all-in-one option.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'for any beach location' and the auto-geocoding note tell the agent the tool accepts free-text beach names, and the examples ('Waikiki', 'Bondi Beach') show the expected input style. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_surf_forecast or get_uv_forecast, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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