maritime_search_vessels

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes cursor-based pagination, optional parameters, and output formats. It does not mention destructive actions or rate limits, but those are not expected for a search tool.

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 moderately lengthy but well-organized into sections (purpose, parameters, returns, tips). Although it includes a separate 'Tips for LLMs' section, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to slight verbosity.

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 complexity (11 optional parameters, no required, no output schema), the description covers parameter semantics, pagination, and tips for chaining with other tools. The 'Returns' paragraph describes the general structure. It could be improved by including an example response, but it is largely complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so by detailing built_range format ('YYYY/YYYY'), enumerating chamber options, specifying defaults for max_results and output_mode, and explaining the cursor parameter. 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 'Search for VOC vessels by name, type, or construction details,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like maritime_get_vessel and maritime_search_voyages by focusing on the search functionality.

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 guidance, including 'All search parameters are optional and combined with AND logic,' and LLM tips that recommend when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Follow up with maritime_get_vessel for full construction details'). It clearly states context for use.

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