Observed and derived upcoming departures on an origin→destination lane, with carrier and frequency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Origin port UN/LOCODE | |
| destination | Yes | Destination port UN/LOCODE |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of ocean shipping: storms, carrier performance, lane schedules, port conditions, and alerts. Even overlapping areas like carrier reliability and lane comparisons are clearly differentiated by scope and purpose.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Most follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, though some start with verbs (e.g., compare_lanes, find_sailings) and others with nouns (e.g., carrier_league, port_congestion). This is predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of ocean scheduling. Each tool provides meaningful functionality without redundancy, covering storms, carriers, lanes, ports, and alerts.
The tool surface covers core information needs: storms, carrier reliability, lane schedules, port congestion, transit times, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking detailed vessel info or carrier-specific data beyond reliability, but the overall coverage is strong for an informational service.
