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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only prediction, whether the model is deterministic, latency, rate limits, or what the forecast output looks like. 'Predictive Model' conveys that it computes a forecast but adds no operational detail.

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?

Two short fragments with the deprecation warning front-loaded, which is the right emphasis. No waste, though the trailing 'Vessel Queue Predictive Model' is close to a name restatement.

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?

A 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain parameter formats and the nature of the returned forecast. The description only flags deprecation, leaving the agent able to route away but unable to call the tool correctly if it must.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. An agent cannot learn from the definition what port_id format is expected (name, UN/LOCODE, numeric id) or what unit/limits forecast_horizon_days accepts beyond the default of 1.

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 it is a 'Vessel Queue Predictive Model' — a specific verb (predict) plus resource (vessel queue). However it does not describe what is actually predicted (wait times, queue length, arrival delays), so the precise output is unclear. The deprecation banner and pointer to the successor tool are the most useful part.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use forecast_vessel_queue_delays instead — that is a strong, unambiguous routing instruction naming the alternative. It lacks any positive statement of when this tool would still be used, but for a deprecated tool the 'don't use this' guidance is the dominant need.

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