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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: an implicit filter (only chokepoints with a published daily ship count), the sort order (furthest below normal first), and the field set returned. It does not state coverage limits or how 'normal' is computed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads scope, then ordering, then the returned fields via a colon list — efficient and skimmable. The enumerated status values are slightly list-heavy but each item carries real information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields, the status enum values, and the ordering. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the schema does not support.

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 resource (maritime chokepoints) with named examples (Suez, Panama, Hormuz, Malacca) and scopes it to those 'with a published daily ship count', which separates it from a single-chokepoint lookup like get_chokepoint_status. An agent knows exactly what set of entities comes back without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Every maritime chokepoint ... furthest below normal first' signals this is the overview/ranking call, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_chokepoint_status or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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