maritime_pipeline_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the semantic caveat that keyless AIS coverage is coastal rather than open-ocean — real context an agent would otherwise misread — but it never states that this is a read-only diagnostic call, whether results are cached or live, or how fresh the percentiles are.

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 sentence that front-loads the subject and packs the returned fields plus the coastal caveat without padding. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the reported sections. What is missing is any operational framing — when to reach for this diagnostic — but for a parameterless read tool it is largely sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool 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 names a specific resource (the keyless AIS pipeline) and enumerates its contents: vessels per source, OpenWaters sweep status, fix-age percentiles. That is enough for an agent to know what this returns, though it never contrasts itself with sibling tools like maritime_coverage or maritime_vessels_bbox.

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 when-to-use statement and no alternative named. The 'standing note that keyless AIS is coastal' hints at interpretation but does not tell an agent under what conditions to call this versus maritime_coverage or query_vessels.

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