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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Part of the Maritime Reports add-on,' implying a subscription requirement. It lists the types of data returned (dry-dock dates, survey dates, IOPP dates, contact details) and explains the scanning feature. It does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, but covers the core behavioral aspects adequately for a read-only lookup.

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 consists of two succinct sentences plus a one-phrase add-on note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently covers both single-vessel and fleet-scan modes. No redundant or vague language; every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are defined there), the description sufficiently covers usage context: the two query modes, the types of data returned, and the add-on dependency. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but these are often implicit in JSON array outputs. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how 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?

The schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the alternative usage of imo vs name for single-vessel lookup, and how dry_dock_from/dry_dock_to define a date range for fleet scans. This clarifies parameter relationships and intended use beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool 'looks up planned and past dry-dock dates, special-survey dates, and IOPP certificate dates for a vessel, along with its technical manager's contact details.' It specifies distinct use cases: single vessel by IMO/name or fleet scan by date range. The unique subject (drydock/survey) distinguishes it from sibling intel_* tools that cover casualties, class, companies, etc.

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 outlines two usage modes: target a single vessel by imo or name, or scan a forward window across the fleet using dry_dock_from/dry_dock_to. This gives clear guidance on when to use each set of parameters. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools for similar purposes.

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