get_air_cargo_disruptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details what data is returned (delays, stops, scores) but does not mention data source, update frequency, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. This partially informs behavior but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. It efficiently lists key data points and airports without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main output elements (delays, stops, closure status, score) and lists covered airports. It lacks details like disruption score calculation or update frequency, but for a tool with no parameters and a clear domain, it does a good job.

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 no parameters (0 params), so baseline score is 4. The description adds value by specifying the types of disruption data returned and the covered airports, which is useful context beyond the empty 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 specifies the tool retrieves real-time air cargo disruption status at major freight hub airports, listing specific delay types and airports. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on air cargo hubs rather than broader supply chain disruptions.

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 states it is used by air freight forwarders and logistics planners for rerouting, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like get_port_disruption_index or get_natural_disaster_alerts.

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