Shipping triangle: route disruption & throughput ($0.10)

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses monetary cost ($0.10 USDC on Base) and lists data sources (WMO, AIS). It implies a read-only analytical tool with cross-validation. No contradictions.

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 a single dense sentence listing multiple components. While information-rich, it lacks paragraph breaks or bullet points, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 explains the multifaceted outputs (disruption, cause, throughput, validation) and cost. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and data, though error behavior and result format are omitted.

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 sole parameter 'loc' is fully described in the schema with examples. The tool description repeats the examples but adds no new syntax or format details. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline applies.

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 assesses 'logistics-flow disruption' with specific components (WMO sea state, wave decomposition, AIS throughput). It distinguishes from siblings like gauge_crop_drought or gauge_grid_stress by focusing on maritime chokepoints and shipping.

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?

Target users are specified ('shipping lines, commodity/freight traders, ports, marine insurers') and example chokepoint IDs (malacca, suez) provide clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling diversity makes context sufficient.

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