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 that this is part of the Maritime Reports add-on, which is useful context about availability. It does not disclose details like whether the data is delayed, whether both imo and name can be combined, or what happens if no transactions are found, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 and data fields are front-loaded, followed by use case, identification method, and add-on note. 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers purpose, use case, identification, and optional date bounds. It could mention that no parameters are required (all optional) or clarify behavior when both imo and name are omitted, but overall it is complete enough for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the relationship between imo and name ('use when the IMO is unknown') and the from/to bounding concept, but it does not add much beyond what the schema already says. 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ship sale-and-purchase transactions for a vessel'), and enumerates the exact transaction types and data fields (seller, buyer, reported price, price per lightweight ton, demolition destination). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intel_ownership or intel_drydock by focusing on sale/purchase and demolition records.

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 says it is 'Useful for asset valuation and market tracking,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It also explains how to identify the vessel (by imo or name) and optionally bound the period with from/to. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough among the siblings.

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