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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool always returns a list, even for a single match, and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, which is a minor gap. Overall, good transparency for a search tool.

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 sentences, each packed with information: first states function and output, second lists search options, third clarifies always-returns-list and distinguishes sibling. No redundant words, front-loaded with key details.

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 9 parameters, 0 required, and an output schema, the description covers main use cases, search capabilities, and return behavior. It provides a fallback to get_port. Lacks mention of pagination or maximum results, but schema covers radius limit. Very good completeness for agent to understand tool scope.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a higher-level summary of search methods but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. The always-returns-list behavior is context, not parameter-specific. Score remains at baseline.

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 searches the port registry and returns matching ports with specific fields. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_port by noting that get_port is for full detail on a known port.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to discover ports or resolve a name to UN/LOCODE/uuid. Also specifies when not to use: for full detail on one known port, use get_port. Provides clear context for agent decision-making.

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