find_installation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the searchable fields and the return content (ANTAQ codes), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about match behavior, result limits, ambiguity handling, or whether authentication is needed for a read-only search.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the return-value note. The example values earn their place by clarifying that both names and codes are acceptable input.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (ANTAQ codes) and why. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter search, but leaves open what happens with partial or ambiguous matches and whether multiple installations can be returned.

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 single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, by naming the three accepted match domains (name, port complex, ANTAQ code) and giving four concrete example values including a code format like 'BRSSZ'.

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 (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (Brazilian port installations, public ports and private terminals). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like port_profile or compare_ports, which consume the codes this tool produces.

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 sentence 'Returns ANTAQ codes to use in the other tools' makes the workflow position clear: this is the discovery/lookup step that feeds the other tools. It does not name a specific alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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