track_ferry

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states a read-only 'get' but does not disclose that the default use_cache=true may return stale/cached data, despite claiming 'current' position. Error behavior and data freshness are also unaddressed.

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?

A single, directly front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: verb, scope, resource, and key input are all present.

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 simple single-vessel lookup, the description plus schema is minimally viable, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'status' includes, nor how to obtain an MMSI (e.g., via list_ferries). The caching nuance is also left to the schema. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both mmsi (including an example) and use_cache (default and meaning). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents them, placing it at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current position and status of a Boston Harbor ferry'), and uniquely scopes it by MMSI. This differentiates it from siblings like track_all_ferries (all vessels) and list_ferries (listing, not tracking).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of track_all_ferries or list_ferries. The 'by MMSI number' phrase subtly implies a known specific vessel, but no direct alternatives or conditions are provided.

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