bts_border_crossings

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

With the readOnlyHint annotation already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful context about monthly frequency and geographic scope. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or response format, but the schema covers the limit parameter and no destructive traits are implied.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently conveys scope, coverage, and data dimensions without 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?

The description explains the key dimensions (port, state, measure type) and monthly granularity, which gives a good sense of the returned data shape even without an output schema. It does not detail response structure, pagination, or use cases, but for a read-only data lookup with five self-describing parameters, this is adequate.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., 'state' lists examples, 'measure' provides enumerations and clarifications). The description mentions 'by port, state, and measure type' which aligns with parameters but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with 'Get border crossing data at U.S. ports of entry' using a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the measure types (trucks, personal vehicles, pedestrians, train passengers, containers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bts_transport_stats, which cover broader transportation statistics.

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 usage context: it covers U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders, monthly data, and dimension by port, state, and measure type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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