maritime_get_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It explains the tool computes summary statistics and lists the breakdowns in the response (losses_by_region, losses_by_cause, etc.), but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It accurately describes the read-only nature implicitly.

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-structured with a clear opening, bullet-like lists for computed statistics and parameters, and dedicated tips. Though somewhat lengthy, every section adds value and no information is redundant. It could be slightly shortened but remains effective.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what the response contains. Tips for LLMs provide actionable guidance (e.g., comparing decades or regions). No missing critical information.

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 0%, yet the description provides detailed explanations for all 4 parameters: archive (default all), date_range (format YYYY/YYYY, default 1595-1795), group_by (reserved), output_mode (json or text, default json). Tips further illustrate usage (e.g., 'Use date_range to focus statistics'). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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: 'Get aggregate statistics across maritime archives' and specifies it computes summary statistics for VOC shipping losses. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on individual records or specific aspects.

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 implies the tool is for aggregate summaries rather than detailed records, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like maritime_search_vessels or maritime_get_voyage. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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