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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a read-style operation ('Return') and parallel execution, but it does not mention invalid LOCODE handling, rate limits, partial-failure behavior, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects. This is insufficient for full 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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a single parameter explanation. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 simple shape (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. It clearly documents the parameter format and batch behavior, though explicit guidance about when to use get_port_risk instead would improve it further.

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 schema only says port_ids is an array of strings, while the description adds essential meaning: these are UN/LOCODEs, with concrete examples like 'BRSSZ', 'CNSHA', and 'NLRTM'. This covers the sole required parameter well, though it does not address edge cases such as empty lists.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return congestion signals for several ports in parallel'. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_port_risk and from list_supported_ports. An agent can infer the batch lookup intent immediately.

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 phrase 'several ports in parallel' implies the tool is for batch queries, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly names get_port_risk as the single-port alternative or provides when-not conditions, so the routing decision is mostly left implicit.

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