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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the returned data fields and the optional include_events behavior, but doesn't disclose any additional constraints like rate limits or data freshness. The example clarifies the calling pattern, which is helpful.

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 plus an example, with the core purpose front-loaded. The description is efficient and includes a concrete invocation example without unnecessary fluff. The example is useful but somewhat redundant with the schema's example field.

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 read-only get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the expected response content (status, holds, LFD, availability, timestamps). It doesn't specify the exact return structure or error handling, but given the simplicity and annotations covering safety, this is adequate. The optional include_events is clearly explained.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of include_events by explaining it fetches normalized transport events, which slightly adds to the schema's description. The example provides a concrete usage pattern but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

States the specific action 'Get a container by id' and enumerates the exact data fields returned (current status, holds, demurrage, etc.), making the resource and purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like terminal49_track or terminal49_shipment, though the name and data fields imply container-specific details.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as terminal49_track or terminal49_shipment. The only conditional is include_events, which is about optional output, not tool selection.

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