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 context about the data fields returned and the add-on, but does not disclose any special behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or identifier requirements beyond what is implicit. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and returned data, then parameter usage. There is no wasted language, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose, key parameters, and the add-on context. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that at least one of imo/name is required, though this is strongly implied. Overall, an agent has enough to call it 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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by stating 'Identify the vessel by imo or name' and 'optionally bound the period with from / to', clarifying that imo and name are alternative identifiers and that from/to are optional bounds. This adds value 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 retrieves a vessel's Port State Control inspection record and enumerates the specific data fields returned (authority, port, type, date, detention, deficiencies). It is specific about the resource and action, and the phrase 'Part of the Maritime Reports add-on' helps distinguish it from the many other intel_* siblings.

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 implies when to use it by specifying what it returns (PSC inspection data), which differentiates it from sibling tools like intel_class or intel_drydock. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives, relying on the content to signal applicability.

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