contingency_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are MODELED, indicative, and not a guarantee; mentions pricing (pay per call with x402); and explains the output structure (plays ranked by urgency). This is transparent about limitations and behavioral traits.

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 lengthy but concise for the amount of information it conveys. It starts with a clear use case, lists actions, pricing, and limitations. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value.

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 compensates by explaining the return: playbook with cost and time deltas, ranking by urgency. It also advises to validate with carrier/forwarder. This is complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds useful context like the effect of 'disruption_type' (force a specific what-if) and 'urgency' parameter, but these are already mentioned in the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema is already thorough.

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 states the tool's purpose: given a lane, it detects active disruptions and generates an actionable playbook with routing, modal shift, port swap, pre-positioning, and re-prioritization options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'simulate_scenario' or 'booking_strategy' by focusing on disruption contingency.

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 description explains when to use it ('My route just broke — what do I do AHEAD of the next sailing?') and lists required and optional parameters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies it's for immediate disruption response.

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