vessel_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the track is bounded by the store's ~1h retention window and that several outputs are 'derived' (speed profile, behaviour assessment), signalling computed/inferred rather than raw data. It omits cost/latency, whether the dossier is computed on demand, and any caveats about assessment confidence.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the resource, the key, and the payload list, and a short follow-up sentence pins the retention constraint. No filler; the enumerated contents each add discriminating information.

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-value detail needn't be repeated, and the retention window is a valuable completeness win. However, for a multi-source aggregation tool the undocumented 'detail' switch is a material omission — an agent cannot tell whether it is requesting a small summary or a heavy full dossier.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies mmsi via 'for one vessel (MMSI)', but the second parameter, 'detail' (default 'short'), is never mentioned — its allowed values and the difference between short and full output are left completely unexplained, which is a real gap for a dossier whose size presumably varies drastically.

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-like resource — a per-vessel 'pattern-of-life dossier' keyed by MMSI — and enumerates its contents (track, AIS gaps, speed profile, area, incidents, behaviour assessment). This clearly separates it from bulk siblings like query_vessels and maritime_vessels_bbox, which operate over sets of vessels rather than one MMSI.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for one vessel (MMSI)' plus the retention caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., track_history, incident_history, query_vessels). The agent must infer that this is the single-vessel deep-dive tool rather than the list/search tool.

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