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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it can target a single vessel OR scan a forward window across the fleet, and it returns planned and past dates plus contact details. It doesn't mention pagination or output limits, but the output schema exists and the read-only nature is well covered.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the two usage modes are clearly separated, and the add-on note is a single useful qualifier. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the two invocation modes and the data returned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state whether the date-range scan requires at least one of dry_dock_from/dry_dock_to, but the schema's optional parameters and the description's phrasing make this a small omission.

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 all four parameters. The description adds the relationship between dry_dock_from/dry_dock_to as a forward-window scan, which is useful, but it doesn't add format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 names a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('dry-dock dates, special-survey dates, IOPP certificate dates, technical manager contact details'), and distinguishes two usage modes: single-vessel lookup by imo/name and fleet-wide date-range scan. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like intel_inspections or intel_class, which cover different maritime data domains.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to look up dry-dock/survey/IOPP dates and technical manager contacts, and when to use the date-range parameters to scan the fleet. It also notes it is part of the Maritime Reports add-on, which signals a prerequisite/availability context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the domain-specific scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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