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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it names the data sources (CBP BWT, GDELT, AIS heuristic, BTS/AAR), states the output scale 0-95, gives the ~2-5 day lead horizon, and notes it is free with no API key. What is missing is behavior with both parameters omitted (defaults to all ports/chokepoints?), update latency, and failure modes.

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?

Very short and front-loaded – the core purpose leads and supporting detail follows. However, the telegraphic keyword-soup style ('BTS/AAR hints', 'Free gov no-key') trades readability for density, which is slightly harder to parse than plain prose.

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 two-optional-parameter compute tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks key facts: what happens if both arrays are empty, how the composite is weighted across sources, and what shape the response takes (single score vs per-port breakdown). The description covers sources and scale but not output structure or defaults.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both optional parameters with example values (LAX,NYC,HOU / hormuz, suez). The description only echoes the words 'port/chokepoint' and adds no syntax, default, or selection semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening phrase 'Port/chokepoint stress composite' plus the index range (0-95) tells an agent exactly what is produced, and the enumerated data sources clarify its composition. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling supply_stress or trade_flows, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Trade lead 2-5d freight spike' implies this is a leading indicator for freight cost movement, which is implicit usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to supply_stress or trade_flows, and no statement about when this tool is the wrong choice.

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