get_ports_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses parallel execution and that it returns congestion signals, but says nothing about error handling, rate limits, or read-only guarantees beyond the word 'return'.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the parameter documentation directly follows with an example. 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, this is nearly complete. The example UN/LOCODEs and parallel behavior make the call contract understandable. It does not explicitly point to list_supported_ports for valid codes, but that is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by defining port_ids as UN/LOCODEs and providing concrete examples (BRSSZ, CNSHA, NLRTM), adding meaning beyond the bare array schema. It stops short of specifying validation rules or length limits.

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 congestion signals for multiple ports, using a specific verb and resource. The plural 'ports' and 'in parallel' distinguish it from the singular sibling get_port_risk.

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 phrase 'several ports in parallel' gives clear context that this tool is for batch/multi-port queries, implying the singular sibling is for one port. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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