get_marine_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that tide data requires 'Pro+ plan and above,' which adds useful context about access restrictions. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and adding context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying forecast elements and usage scenario, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some context but is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and a usage hint, but lacks details on behavior, response format, and full parameter guidance. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured support, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by mentioning tide data as optional, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'days' or 'q' beyond the schema's descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Get marine and sailing weather forecast' with specific elements like wave height, swell, and tide data. It distinguishes from general weather tools by focusing on marine aspects, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'get_current_weather' or 'get_forecast' which might also provide some overlapping data.

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 implies usage context with 'Useful for nautical and coastal planning,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_forecast' or 'get_current_weather,' and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the optional tide data note.

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