maritime_nearby_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits well: searches 'all CLIWOC logbook positions for the specified date', notes the coverage years (1662-1855), that earlier dates have fewer records, and that results include distance_km and matching position. It does not contradict any annotations (none present).

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 brief overview, a clear Args section, and a list of tips. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and context.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It explains the data source (CLIWOC 1662-1855), how to adjust for sparsity, date handling, output format (JSON or text with distance_km), and even suggests combinatory usage. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description compensates fully with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (lat, lon, date, radius_km, max_results, output_mode), including defaults and format. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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: 'Find ships near a given position on a given date.' It specifies the resource (CLIWOC logbook positions) and verb (find, searches, returns), and distinguishes from sibling tools like maritime_search_tracks by focusing on proximity to a point. No ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for finding what other ships were in an area when a wreck or incident occurred.' It includes tips such as increasing radius if no results, using exact date format, trying adjacent dates, and combining with maritime_assess_position. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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