dnd_strategy

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads congestion data, builds dwell distributions, and computes probabilistic costs. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only). The methodology is transparent, including modeled assumptions and payment methods.

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 comprehensive but well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, explains methodology, then lists parameters with their roles. It includes necessary caveats and payment info without being verbose. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values: dwell distribution, probability of breach, expected chargeable days, expected D&D cost, p90 cost, and a recommended free-day target. It covers inputs and outputs completely for this complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how each parameter influences the analysis (e.g., dest_port drives congestion, ship_date sets evaluation date, carrier refines free days). It enriches understanding of parameter relationships.

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 it optimizes demurrage & detention free-time strategy for a destination, using specific verbs like 'optimize' and reference to 'beyond the simple D&D line'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'booking_strategy' or 'carrier_recommendation' by focusing on free-day negotiation and expected cost modeling.

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 (to negotiate free days, evaluate expected D&D costs) and provides context on destination congestion and dwell distribution. It mentions options like passing a carrier or mean dwell. It lacks explicit negative usage guidance but includes a caveat that it's not a carrier's filed tariff.

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