maritime_chokepoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('derived live from the AIS union') and that it returns vessel + stationary counts per chokepoint, but says nothing about freshness window, coverage gaps, or whether all chokepoints are always returned.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and examples, then provenance. No 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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the core data is described. But the undefined 'detail' parameter and lack of routing/prerequisite context leave real gaps for a tool sitting among many maritime siblings.

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 sole parameter 'detail' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. An agent has no way to know what values are accepted (besides the 'short' default) or what changing it does to the output.

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 (vessel congestion at named straits) with concrete examples (Hormuz/Suez/Malacca/Bosphorus) and data provenance (live AIS union). It implicitly separates itself from raw vessel-query siblings like maritime_vessels_bbox or query_vessels, though it never names an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing despite dozens of maritime siblings. An agent must infer that this is the chokepoint-level aggregate versus the per-vessel query tools from the description alone.

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