ship_port_visits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the data is real-time or historical, pagination, date range capabilities, rate limits, or any other usage constraints. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points. For a single-parameter tool, this conciseness is acceptable but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 lack of an output schema and the simple input, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of port visits with timestamps and port names). It fails to provide this essential context, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format and completeness.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (vessel_id as 'GFW vessel ID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning, such as how to obtain the vessel ID or the expected format. Baseline score 3 as schema covers the parameter.

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 'Get port visit history for a vessel.' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (port visit history for a vessel). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like ship_position or ship_track, which focus on current position or movement tracks rather than historical port visits.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ship_track or ship_position. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a GFW vessel ID), nor any indication of typical use cases or limitations.

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