Current 12-month cruise-disruption odds for one of Europe's main cruise rivers (chance a sailing day hits low water, or high water on the Seine). Refreshed daily from official sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| river | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clarifies the meaning of 'disruption odds' as chance of low water (and high water on the Seine), and notes the data is refreshed daily from official sources. It doesn't disclose return format or any side effects, but for a read-only tool the key behavior is defined.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main output and immediately clarifying the risk definition. No filler words.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should specify result structure. It does not indicate whether the odds are returned per month, as a single aggregate, or in what format. The 12-month phrase is ambiguous between a single odds over the year and monthly odds, and 'monthly' in the name is not reinforced in the text.
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 has only a river enum with no descriptions, so the description is the sole source. It adds the important caveat that the Seine is specifically included for high-water risk, which affects interpretation of results. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate the valid river choices, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's enum.
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?
Description names a specific resource ('cruise-disruption odds') and scopes it to a 12-month horizon and one of Europe's main cruise rivers. It distinguishes from sibling tools (gauges, month detail, sailing score) by focusing on odds rather than live readings or specific days.
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 gives context (12-month outlook, daily refresh) that implies use for planning, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_live_gauges or score_sailing. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct need: live readings, month explanations, 12-month odds, and specific cruise scoring. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Three tools follow get_ convention, but score_sailing uses a different verb. Minor deviation does not affect clarity.
Four tools cover the domain without redundancy or bloat. Each serves a clear role in assessing river cruise risk.
The set covers current conditions, month-level explanation, forward-looking odds, and cruise-specific scoring. Minor gaps like historical raw data or river metadata exist but don't undermine core workflows.
