maritime_crew_survival_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description transparently explains that rates are computed from service_end_reason and defines survival/mortality/desertion rates. It also clarifies that rates are per 100 crew with known fate. No destructive behavior is implied, and the tool appears safe.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear main sentence, followed by Args, Returns, and Tips sections. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: purpose, data source, parameters, output format, and interpretive tips. No output schema exists, but the returns section explains the format. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a six-parameter, no-enum 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section fully describes each parameter, including allowed values for group_by, date_range format example, substring filtering for rank/origin, default for top_n, and output_mode options. This significantly exceeds the schema's value.

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 analyzes survival, mortality, and desertion rates for VOC crews from the Opvarenden dataset, with specific grouping options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maritime_crew_demographics or maritime_crew_career.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides concrete examples of when to use different group_by values (e.g., 'group_by='rank' reveals which ranks had highest mortality'), offering good usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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