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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the privacy behavior ('without exposing raw identities or positions'), deterministic output labels, and the pricing model ('$0.02/call, x402'), which are useful behavioral traits.

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 concise, containing two sentences that front-load the purpose and output details. The first sentence explains the comparison and baselines; the second lists outputs and the privacy guarantee. There is no wasted wording, and pricing is appended succinctly.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of what the tool does and what it returns (labels, freshness, confidence, gaps, action). It also mentions the demo vs. live mode indirectly via 'without exposing raw identities or positions.' However, it could be more explicit about the return format or how the baselines affect results, but it is sufficient for an agent to select the tool.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning the 'three fixed Strait of Hormuz zones' and 'seven- and thirty-observation baselines,' which are indirectly related to the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Compare aggregate commercial-tanker observations across three fixed Strait of Hormuz zones' and lists specific outputs like 'recovery labels, freshness, confidence, gaps, and a human-review action.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the Strait of Hormuz tanker flow recovery, which is a unique scope.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when analyzing Strait of Hormuz tanker flow recovery with specific baselines. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the tool's specificity makes its usage context obvious. It also notes the privacy feature 'without exposing raw identities or positions,' which adds usage guidance.

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