get_port_intel

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool is 'INDICATIVE, NOT a live waiting-time feed' and 'MODELED structural typical + a dated disruption overlay.' It also mentions premium pricing and conversion details. This level of transparency is commendable, though it could mention if the tool is read-only.

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 verbose and dense, covering extensive detail in a single paragraph. While it front-loads the main purpose, it could benefit from bullet points or structured sections for readability. However, every sentence adds value, so it is not overly wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides comprehensive information about return values (congestion index, waiting days, operational-risk score, active disruptions) and data sources. It also clarifies limitations and pricing, ensuring the agent has enough context to invoke the tool appropriately.

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?

100% schema coverage lowers the burden. The description provides additional context for the `ship_date` parameter, explaining how disruptions are evaluated relative to the date. For other parameters, it references the schema's descriptions (e.g., same normalization as get_spot_rate). This adds meaning beyond the schema for at least one parameter.

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: to provide port congestion and disruption intelligence for a lane. It explicitly distinguishes itself from rate tools, indicating its unique role in assessing operational port status, not costs. This specificity helps the agent understand exactly what this tool offers versus siblings like get_spot_rate.

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 contrasts the tool with rate tools, guiding when to use it ('this tells you whether the PORTS can actually clear it on schedule'). It also mentions pricing details. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or scenarios to avoid using it, which would further enhance guidance.

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