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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: the precedence order for resolving free days (contract, then tariff, then benchmark), and how terms_source/confidence must be reported. It also flags cost-floor and truncation semantics that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is dense and long, but front-loaded and each clause carries operational weight — counters, precedence, and edge-case meanings. Minor verbosity from the repeated emphasis on the estimated-figure caveat, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description supplies the interpretation rules an agent cannot infer from field names: empty item list plus non-zero unassessable count means 'cannot assess', total_at_risk_usd is a floor, and truncated signals a partial fleet. Both the no-arg and single-container paths are covered.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what scoping to a container yields (scope_container.verdict and its enum values), which the bare schema does not.

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 a specific output artifact (demurrage and detention risk report) and enumerates exactly what it contains: containers near or past free days, daily rates, projected cost. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_demurrage_free_time and get_container_detail.

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 states when to call it ('when asked about demurrage risk or detention fees') and when to narrow scope (pass container_id for a single shipment vs omit for portfolio-wide). It does not explicitly name or exclude the closely related get_demurrage_free_time sibling, which would have made routing unambiguous.

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