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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool retrieves data (read-only) and lists the types of transactions and data fields. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, which would enhance transparency.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, each carrying useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use case and parameter guidance, with no unnecessary words.

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, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main parameters, use case, and the add-on context. However, it could mention that the tool returns a list of transactions and any pagination or result limits for full completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description reiterates that the vessel can be identified by IMO or name and that from/to can bound the period, but it adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 ship sale-and-purchase transactions, including specific types (second-hand, newbuilding, demolition) and data fields (seller, buyer, price, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling intel tools that focus on casualties, class, companies, etc., by focusing on commercial transactions.

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 notes the tool is useful for 'asset valuation and market tracking,' providing context for when to use it. It also explains that the vessel can be identified by IMO or name with optional date bounds. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or indicate when not to use this tool.

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