maritime_get_cargo_manifest

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses returns (fields like commodity, quantity, unit, value in guilders), output modes (json/text), currency denomination, archival date ranges, and the fact that not all voyages have records. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 well-organized with a concise summary, bullet-point return values, clear Args and Returns sections, and a separate Tips block. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 purpose, parameters, returns, usage workflow, and historical context. For a tool with no output schema and two parameters, it leaves no gaps in understanding how to use it.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: voyage_id connects to search results or DAS ID, output_mode has default 'json' and alternative 'text'. This fully explains the parameters beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Get the full cargo manifest') and the resource ('for a specific voyage'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like maritime_get_wreck or maritime_get_voyage.

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 explicitly advises to use maritime_search_voyages first and suggests combining with maritime_get_wreck, along with notes on archival coverage. This provides clear when-to-use and contextual guidance.

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