maritime_search_narratives

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral details: AND logic, exact phrase matching, relevance ranking, pagination via cursor, and output formats. No behavioral surprises.

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 sections and front-loaded purpose, but it is somewhat verbose with LLM tips and examples. Could be trimmed slightly without loss of clarity.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all aspects: usage, behavior, parameters, pagination, and return format. It is sufficiently complete for an LLM to use effectively.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (by context signals), the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., 'monsoon', 'Cape of Good Hope', archive IDs, max_results limits, cursor usage). This adds significant 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 searches free-text narrative content across maritime archives, with specific fields listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on structured data (e.g., maritime_search_voyages, maritime_search_wrecks) by targeting narratives.

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 detailed usage tips, including AND logic, quoted phrases, and result ranking. It suggests follow-up tools (maritime_get_voyage, maritime_get_wreck) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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