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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds only the add-on context and fuzzy-matching behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no matching vessel is found.

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 two sentences with the core return value front-loaded and no filler. The field list is long but purposeful; the add-on clause is contextual rather than essential, so it is not perfectly tight.

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 the 100% parameter coverage, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential return set and identifier/filter modes. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether at least one identifier or filter is required, but the schema and description together are adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful grouping by identify-versus-filter modes, but most parameter meaning is already present in the schema and the description does not explain updated_from or company IMO filters beyond those schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: return a vessel's classification society plus a detailed list of technical particulars, owner/manager, and survey dates. The long but explicit field list makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as intel_engine or get_vessel_info.

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 useful targeting guidance (identify by IMO/name, use fuzzy for loose matching, or filter by owner/manager) and notes the Maritime Reports add-on. However, it does not name any sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over comparable intel_* or get_vessel tools.

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