SeaReady

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates the response includes days remaining and SeaReady verification timestamps, which helps an agent assess freshness, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query or describe any data-source or rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core resource first, then adds examples and secondary freshness information. Every clause earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 and no annotations, the description still explains the main return content: upcoming dates, days remaining, and last-verified timestamps. It is nearly complete for a low-complexity, one-parameter retrieval tool, though it does not describe return ordering, empty results, or update cadence.

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%, and the single within_days parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 description clearly identifies the resource: upcoming dates in vetting and PSC regimes, with concrete examples such as concentrated inspection campaigns and RightShip rule changes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like psc_checklist or sire_question_lookup, so it falls 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?

The usage is implied by the content: an agent can infer this tool is for checking upcoming inspection-regime deadlines. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives.

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 the burden and does add real behavioral context: it explains what detainableHint, demonstrate, and pack mean and how pack restricts results by ship type. It omits any statement about permissions, rate limits, or whether coverage is exhaustive, but it is plainly a read-only lookup so those gaps are minor.

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 front-loaded: the resource and the 'call without area' rule come first, followed by the flag glossary. Dense but every clause conveys distinct information; the long parenthetical of ids is the only mildly heavy element.

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 must explain return semantics, and it does so by defining the three item flags an agent will encounter. A brief note on return shape (e.g. whether items carry references or severity) would make it fully self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by enumerating concrete area ids ('cert', 'crew', 'fire', 'lsa', 'nav', 'mach', 'pol1', 'ism', 'isps') and showing that title words like 'fire safety' also work. That adds usable matching guidance beyond the schema's generic 'Area id or words from its title'.

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 a specific resource ('Port State Control preparation items') and its scoping dimension (one deficiency area), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools inspection_deadlines or sire_question_lookup, but those cover clearly different domains, so confusion risk is low.

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 explicitly says 'Call without "area" to list the 24 areas', which gives a concrete entry path and defines the discovery-then-query workflow. It stops short of stating when another tool (e.g. inspection_deadlines) would be preferable, but the usage context is clear.

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 the burden well: it discloses the retrieval scope (12 chapters), the shape of returned content (what good looks like, expected evidence, common negative grounds), and an important provenance caveat (original wording, not OCIMF text). It stops short of stating result ordering/ranking behavior or that this is a read-only search.

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?

Three sentences, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant information (what is searched and what comes back) is front-loaded before the scope caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does, enumerating the three content types the agent will get back. Combined with the provenance caveat and chapter scope, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly; only ranking/pagination detail is missing.

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% and already documents query, limit and chapter including the question-id example. The description adds only the contextual detail that the bank spans 12 chapters, which mildly reinforces the chapter parameter but adds nothing about matching semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 verb and resource: search the SIRE 2.0 preparation question bank across 12 chapters. The scope is instantly distinguishable from inspection_deadlines and psc_checklist, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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?

"Not OCIMF text — for preparation only" frames the tool as a prep aid rather than an authoritative source, which is useful context. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling tools (deadlines, checklist) or what query types map to which use case, leaving routing to inference.

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