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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses rate limits (1 req/s), fallback providers, API key requirements, SLA (<=25s p95), caching durations (24h/1h/30min/5min), quality score, and status values (final/partial/failed). This adds substantial behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with a clear summary, lists the four modes with specific deliverables, and then includes operational details (rate limits, SLA, caching). Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 description covers all necessary context for a complex multi-mode tool: mode-specific inputs/outputs, data source reliability, API key conditions, performance expectations, caching behavior, and response statuses. Given the output schema exists, the description is thorough and leaves no critical gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds some explanatory context about each mode's inputs (e.g., UN/LOCODE example, MMSI digit count), but this largely mirrors the schema's own descriptions. No significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Geospatial logistics intelligence for supply chain, maritime and transport agents.' It enumerates four distinct modes with specific actions (geocode_batch, routing, port_congestion, ship_tracking), each with concrete outputs (lat/lon, ETA, congestion status, AIS data). This distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context for each mode, including input types (UN/LOCODE, MMSI) and data sources. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it. The guidance is implicit in the mode descriptions rather than explicit exclusion or comparison.

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