get_corridor_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains key behavioral traits: scoring by weakest link, combining real-time port congestion and natural disaster proximity. It does not mention update frequency or auth requirements, but the core behavior is well-described.

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 a single paragraph but packs substantial information (corridors, methodology, use cases) in about 80 words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullets or sub-sections, but overall it is concise and efficient.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and for whom, but it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of corridors with scores, data structure). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return type. Adding a sentence about the output would complete the picture.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. By default, no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but that is appropriate since no parameters exist. Baseline score of 4 is suitable.

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 monitors risk levels across 10 specific ocean freight corridors, explains the scoring methodology (weakest link), and lists corridors explicitly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover air cargo, border delays, etc., by being focused on ocean freight corridor risk.

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 explicitly identifies three user groups (logistics planners, procurement teams, freight forwarders) and their specific use cases (route comparison, exposure assessment, early warning). It does not provide negative guidance or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the tool's specificity.

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