Compare multiple port installations on a single indicator in a chosen year, ranked from highest to lowest.
Compare several installations on one indicator in one year, ranked high to low.
Args: installations: ANTAQ codes or unambiguous names. indicator: tonnes, berthings, waiting_hours, hours_at_berth or total_stay_hours. year: reference year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| indicator | Yes | ||
| installations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait, the high-to-low ranking of results, which is useful. However it omits error behavior for invalid codes/ambiguous names, permission needs, and data availability limits, leaving real gaps for an unannotated 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, with parameters in a tidy Args block. The indicator enumeration duplicates the schema enum, which is the only mild 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?
For a 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and parameter meaning, but omits the year default (2025), invalid-input behavior, and any indication of the result shape beyond ranking, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 and largely does: it explains that installations accept ANTAQ codes or unambiguous names and clarifies the year is a reference year. The indicator list merely repeats the schema enum, and the year default of 2025 is not mentioned, but the added meaning for installations is substantive.
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?
States a specific verb (compare), resource (installations/ports), and scope (one indicator, one year), plus the output ordering. It differentiates itself functionally from single-entity siblings like port_profile, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'compare several installations on one indicator' – a multi-entity, single-metric comparison – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among siblings such as port_profile or find_installation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.