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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning live IMF PortWatch and WaveWatch III data crossed with official price moves. However, the truncated ending 'Physical deterioration not yet' leaves an intended behavioral or interpretive detail unexplained.

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 information-dense but structurally broken: it ends abruptly with 'Physical deterioration not yet,' which appears to be an incomplete sentence. While the core concept is front-loaded, the truncation hurts clarity and readability.

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 description conveys the domain and data sources but does not explain how the divergence is computed, how to interpret the output signal, or what the incomplete final phrase means. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-format concerns, but an agent still has to infer important invocation and interpretation details.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any extra meaning about how to format the JSON or text input, and the schema's own label 'parametros del producto' is generic. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 analytical object: physical-vs-price divergence for shipping/logistics stocks, and even names concrete tickers and data sources. It is not a tautology, and it is distinguishable from siblings like chokepoint_risk because it ties physical reality to stock price movement. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'reports,' and the thought trails off mid-sentence.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chokepoint_risk or vessel_sanctions. The description implies an analytical use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should route an agent to a different sibling.

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