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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds useful context such as the record contents and the Maritime Reports add-on membership, but it does not go further to describe pagination, absence behavior, or data freshness. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but the value added is modest.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either to purpose, use-case, or invocation parameters, while the add-on note adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema, fully documented parameters, and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, why it might be used, and how to invoke it. A minor gap is the lack of precedence guidance when both imo and name are provided, but this does not seriously undermine usability.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description restates the identification approach (imo or name, from/to period) and reinforces the relationship between parameters, but it does not add meaningful details beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('vessel's recorded maritime incidents'), and enriches it with event categories like groundings, collisions, fires, and detentions. It also states what each record contains (date, category, narrative), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like intel_inspections or intel_drydock.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('risk and condition assessment') and how to identify the vessel (imo or name) with an optional date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and scope are clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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