SupplyMaven API Pro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('vessel counts at berth and at anchor, congestion score versus historical baseline, and port status'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a monitoring tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence details what's returned, the third lists covered ports, and the fourth specifies usage context. While efficient, the port listing is quite detailed and could potentially be streamlined, though it does provide useful specificity.

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 the tool's complexity (monitoring 26 ports with multiple metrics) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good coverage of what's monitored and returned. However, it lacks details about output format, data frequency, or potential limitations that would help an agent use it effectively. The completeness is adequate but has clear gaps for a monitoring tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool monitors and returns, which adds value 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Monitor real-time port congestion and vessel traffic at 26 major global ports.' It specifies the verb ('monitor'), resource ('port congestion and vessel traffic'), scope ('26 major global ports'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_port_congestion_trends' by focusing on real-time monitoring rather than trend analysis.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Used by freight forwarders, logistics teams, and importers to monitor delays, plan routing, and anticipate lead time changes.' It explicitly names the target users and use cases, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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