maritime_search_musters

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 describes the search functionality and parameters, and mentions pagination and output modes, but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The search implies read-only, but lacks explicit confirmation.

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, starting with a clear one-line summary, followed by database context, a detailed parameter list, return description, and usage tips. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 has 10 parameters with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and hints at the return structure (matching muster records and pagination metadata). The tips provide guidance for effective use with sibling tools, making it complete for an LLM to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults and maximums for max_results, and practical notes for each (e.g., case-insensitive for ship_name, format for date_range). This adds significant value 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 searches GZMVOC ship-level muster records from Asian waters, specifying the database and time period. It distinguishes from sibling tools like maritime_get_muster and maritime_compare_wages, and mentions complementing VOC Opvarenden.

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 explicit tips for LLMs on when to use location, year_start/year_end filters, and cross-linking with das_voyage_id. It also suggests follow-ups with maritime_get_muster and maritime_compare_wages, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond those mentioned.

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