ocean-schedules

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 discloses data sources (CMA, NHC, JTWC, GDACS) and output fields (name, basin, category, etc.), giving a clear picture of what to expect. It could enhance transparency by mentioning update frequency or behavior when no storms are active, but the current level is strong.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and key attributes, and the second sentence reinforces the use case. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return format. It lists specific fields (name, basin, category, etc.) and sources, providing enough context for the agent to understand the response structure. However, it does not mention potential error states or performance considerations.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. The baseline score is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output structure, which compensates for the lack of an output 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 uses a specific verb ('active') and resource ('cyclones'), clearly indicating it returns live tropical cyclones with attributes like name, basin, category, and position. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lane_storm_exposure' which focus on lane-specific exposure, not general cyclone status.

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 states the tool is for seeing 'which storms are at sea right now,' implying a current snapshot use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings (e.g., for historical data or lane-specific analysis), leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the tool ranks carriers by on-time reliability across all lanes, but does not describe output format, data freshness, or limitations. For a read-only tool with zero parameters, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word carries meaning.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the data is real-time or periodic, but overall it suffices for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 provides a league table ranking ocean carriers by overall on-time reliability across all tracked lanes. It specifies the verb (ranked) and the resource (carriers), distinguishing it from siblings like carrier_reliability which likely focuses on per-lane reliability.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as carrier_reliability or find_best_sailings. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. It only vaguely mentions 'on-time performance and delay distribution'.

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 a single sentence, but it includes inaccurate information (optional lane) that wastes space. It could be concise if corrected.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not. The tool is incomplete for an agent to understand what data it will receive.

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?

The single parameter 'carrier_code' has 100% schema coverage with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the misleading reference to an optional lane degrades clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states on-time performance and delay distribution for a specific carrier, but the mention of an optional lane is misleading because the input schema does not include a lane parameter. This inaccuracy undermines clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'carrier_league' or 'compare_lanes'. The description does not explain context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, permissions needed, side effects, or how the ranking is computed. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a decision-making tool.

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 with zero waste, clearly stating purpose and usage. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and output details reduces completeness. It suffices but could be better.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., UN/LOCODE format is already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it compares ocean carriers for a specific origin-destination pair, ranked by on-time reliability and transit time. This distinguishes it from siblings like carrier_reliability (single carrier) and find_sailings (list sailings).

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to decide which line to book.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context of deciding between carriers is clear and differentiates from sibling tools.

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

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

The description explains the tool returns one sailing per carrier, ranked, with various filters. However, it does not disclose how the ranking is computed (e.g., heuristic, ML), nor does it mention data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose, filtering options, and use case. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 adequately explains what the tool does and the filters available, but it does not describe the output format or fields. Given no output schema, this omission could reduce clarity for an agent, though it is partially compensated by the sibling tools' familiarity.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or format details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a decision query for finding the best upcoming sailings on a lane, one per carrier, ranked. It specifies filtering options and the intended use case ('what should I book?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_sailings which likely return all sailings.

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 provides clear context that this is a decision query for ranking best options, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare to alternatives like find_sailings. The phrase 'Use this to answer "what should I book?"' gives strong guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by describing 'upcoming departures' and does not indicate any destructive or side effects. The phrase 'observed and derived' hints at data provenance but does not contradict any annotations. While it could explicitly state that it is a safe read operation, the implication is clear enough.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for its content.

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?

Given no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description partially covers return values by mentioning 'carrier and frequency.' However, it omits other relevant details like time, date, vessel, or pagination, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's output. The description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Origin port UN/LOCODE' and 'Destination port UN/LOCODE'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the return values ('carrier and frequency') but does not enhance the meaning of the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already provides.

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 finds 'observed and derived upcoming departures on an origin→destination lane, with carrier and frequency.' It specifies the verb ('find'), the resource ('sailings'), and the scope ('origin→destination lane'), making the purpose unambiguous. Additionally, it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_best_sailings' and 'get_schedules' by focusing on basic observed and derived departures.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_best_sailings' or 'get_schedules.' It neither states prerequisites nor mentions scenarios where this tool should be avoided, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sourcing from carrier connectors/aggregators but omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data latency. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and usage without unnecessary words. The most important information (what the tool returns and its ordering) is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return fields (carrier, vessel, voyage, ETD/ETA, cut-offs) and ordering. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that the output is a list of schedules, which is currently implied.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (UN/LOCODE strings). The description adds the concept of an 'origin→destination lane' but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema's explanations. Hence, the description adds minimal value over 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 defines the tool's purpose: retrieving published forward sailing schedules for a given origin-destination lane. It specifies the key data fields (carrier, vessel, voyage, ETD/ETA, cut-offs) and ordering ('soonest first'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'find_sailings'.

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 statement 'Use this to find concrete upcoming departures to book' provides direct guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like 'find_best_sailings', which could lead to selection ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the check is for 'currently' with 'forecast gale field', but does not explain edge cases like no cyclones or invalid ports.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose, second provides key usage note.

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?

Covers main use and parameter behavior but lacks details on output format or precise definition of 'storm-exposed'. With no output schema, more context on return values would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that omitting both ports lists every exposed lane, which is not in schema alone.

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 function: check if an ocean lane passes through a cyclone's forecast gale field. It distinguishes from siblings like active_cyclones by focusing on lane exposure rather than cyclone info.

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 implies use for storm-exposure checks and mentions omitting ports to list all exposed lanes, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists data sources (weiyun, IMF PortWatch, own AIS) and output components. However, it omits details like update frequency or any side effects (though likely none).

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs multiple output details. It could be broken into clearer segments, but it remains concise without fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description adequately explains return values (level, wait days, confidence, per-source detail). For a single-parameter tool, this is fairly complete, though confidence interpretation and wait day precision are not elaborated.

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% with the 'port' parameter already described as a UN/LOCODE with an example. The description adds no further semantic depth beyond repeating the purpose.

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 it provides a fused port-congestion signal for a given UN/LOCODE, listing output fields (level, wait days, confidence, per-source detail), making it distinct from siblings like port_reliability.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like port_reliability.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions output data (congestion, dwell signals) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key terms. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be improved by mentioning output format or typical data ranges.

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% for the single parameter 'port' with description. The description only repeats the schema's example and does not add formatting or additional meaning.

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 clearly states the tool provides congestion and dwell signals for a port, specifying average wait and vessels at anchor. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'port_congestion'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like port_congestion. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is observed (likely historical) and provides median/p90 in days, but omits details on data freshness, authentication, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It contains no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions median/p90 and days but does not specify the structure (e.g., object with keys), error handling, pagination, or time period. Lacks completeness for a tool with parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (origin, destination, carrier_code). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 'observed transit-time distribution (median / p90, in days)' for 'a carrier on an origin→destination lane', specifying the verb, resource, statistics, units, and scope, which distinguishes it from siblings.

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 implies usage when needing transit-time statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'carrier_reliability' or 'find_sailings', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: email alerts for four events and returns the created watch. It does not mention any destructive side effects, which matches the read/create nature of watching.

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 with no fluff. First sentence defines the action, second sentence mentions output. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and output type ('Returns the created watch'). It notes the paid nature. Could be slightly more detailed about the return format but is still fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., origins, destinations, alert toggles). It focuses on high-level function, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 verb 'Watch a lane' and specifies the exact alerts (blanked, cut-off closing, slip, reliability drops). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_sailings' or 'get_schedules' which are listing tools, while this is for monitoring.

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 mentions '(PAID)' indicating it's a paid feature but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No alternatives or when-not-to-use hints are given.

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