get_port_disruption_index

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It describes the output (scores based on factors) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose other behavioral aspects like data freshness or permissions. For a simple data retrieval tool with no side effects, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and score range, followed by relevant details on factors and nodes. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains the concept, score interpretation, coverage factors, and port nodes. No significant gaps.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already implies (none), resulting in a baseline score of 3 as per rubric.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides Port Readiness scores measuring land-side logistics conditions at major US ports, with score range 0-100. It lists specific factors and 7 port nodes, making the resource specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_port_congestion_trends.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, without suggesting appropriate contexts or exclusions. Sibling tools such as port_congestion_monitor or get_port_congestion_trends are not mentioned.

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