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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key caveat that this is a SYNTHETIC projection, not a live forecast — critical for trusting the output. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, but the synthetic-data disclosure is the most consequential trait for this tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then usage, then the synthetic caveat, then args — each sentence adds distinct information with no filler. The Args block is compact and the examples earn their space by clarifying the ID format.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, data provenance, and param format. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 0% and the single param is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying the UN/LOCODE format with two concrete examples (BRSSZ Santos, BRPNG Paranaguá). That is more than the schema provides, though it omits invalid-input behavior or case sensitivity.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (short-horizon 24/48/72h congestion projection for a port), including the exact horizon windows. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_port_risk as a complement and contrasting near-term direction against the 'current snapshot' tools.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when a decision depends on the NEAR-TERM direction of congestion... rather than the current snapshot') and names the alternative it complements (get_port_risk). The deteriorating/stable/easing enumeration tells the agent what output dimension drives selection.

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