Score a voyage route (API key)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete operational context they do not cover: the required API key and a monthly quota of 10,000 assessments, which explains why a scoring call is not purely read-only. It does not describe latency, error behavior, or what 'missing sources' implies operationally.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by the prerequisite and the auth/quota note. Every sentence carries information, though the output enumeration sentence is dense and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, listing the score, risk level, signals, confidence, and missing sources. It also covers the auth and quota preconditions that an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the unexplained optional parameters.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters (dwt_tonnes, speed_knots, vessel_type, load_condition, customer_reference). It explains nothing about these — no units, effect on the score, or defaults — and its UN/LOCODE remark merely restates what the schema already documents for origin/destination.

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?

Names a specific verb (score) and resource (voyage route between two ports specified as UN/LOCODEs), and enumerates the actual output (0–100 score, risk level, driving signals, confidence, missing sources). It is clearly distinguishable from vessel-screening siblings like screen_vessel and from the port-only find_port.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and sibling route: 'Resolve port names with find_port first.' It also states the auth precondition (ARCNAUTICAL_API_KEY). It does not describe when NOT to use it or when to prefer get_screening/check_vessel, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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