get_port_congestion_trends

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

With empty annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it returns changes relative to historical baselines, identifies accelerating ports, and flags thresholds. It clarifies it does not just give current congestion, so the agent understands the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 four well-structured sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then adds detail and use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and empty annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capability and use cases. However, it could optionally hint at the return format or data structure to be fully self-contained.

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 schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage trivially. The description adds significant context about the output semantics (trends, acceleration, thresholds), exceeding the baseline of 4 for no-param tools.

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 returns trend analysis ('direction and trajectory') rather than current congestion, distinguishing it from siblings like port_congestion_monitor. The verb 'get' and noun phrase 'port congestion trend analysis' are specific and informative.

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 use cases: logistics planners rerouting shipments and importers anticipating lead time extensions. It implies when to use (when needing trends over current state) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use.

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