query_vessels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by explaining that dark_only means moving vessels with no static identity. However it omits other behavioral facts an agent needs: that centre mode likely requires lat+lon+radius_nm together, how bbox and centre interact, and what 'detail' changes in the response.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filters. Nothing is padded, though the sentence fragments are slightly telegraphic.

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-shape explanation is not needed. But for a 10-parameter geospatial query with zero schema documentation, the description leaves key gaps: mutual exclusivity of centre vs bbox, the meaning of detail/limit, and how to choose this tool over maritime_vessels_bbox.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only meaningfully documents dark_only and loosely maps lat/lon to 'centre'; limit, detail (whose allowed values besides 'short' are unknown), and radius_nm semantics/defaults are left entirely to the schema titles.

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 resource (AIS vessels) plus the classification taxonomy it returns, which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling maritime_vessels_bbox, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to call.

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?

"Scoped by centre or bbox" implies the two invocation modes, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical maritime_vessels_bbox sibling or maritime_coverage that could cover the same query.

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