maritime_list_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool lists routes, covers specific historical types, and returns summaries with durations. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or permissions, but for a read-only listing tool, this is sufficient. The description does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 brief intro, parameter details in a clear bullet-like format, and a tips section. It is concise but contains all necessary information. Minor redundancy (route types listed twice) prevents a perfect score.

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 simplicity (list command, no output schema, 4 optional parameters), the description is complete. It explains what is returned, provides parameter usage examples, and suggests follow-up tools. The low schema coverage is fully compensated by the detailed parameter descriptions.

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 4 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by detailing each parameter: direction with possible values, departure_port and destination_port as substring matches, and output_mode with 'json' (default) or 'text'. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 tool's purpose: 'List available historical sailing routes.' It specifies the types of routes covered (VOC, EIC, Carreira da India, etc.) and what is returned (summaries with typical durations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on tracks, vessels, or crew.

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 includes a 'Tips for LLMs' section that provides explicit usage guidance: use direction='outward' for Europe-to-Asia routes, use departure_port and destination_port to find specific routes, and suggests follow-ups with maritime_get_route and maritime_estimate_position. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and what to do next.

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