port_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does supply real behavioral context: it enumerates the returned metrics and flags a data boundary ('data from 2010'). It does not explicitly declare read-only semantics or note pagination/limits, but the descriptive, non-mutating framing is unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's scope, then a compact Args block. Every clause adds information (measures, units, split dimension, period semantics, data floor) with no redundancy or filler.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description properly takes on the return-value explanation and documents all three parameters. It is complete for correct invocation, though it could have been stricter about defaults and the read-only nature.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains 'installation' accepts an ANTAQ code (with example BRIQI) or an unambiguous name, and defines start_year/end_year as an inclusive period with a floor of 2010. It omits the schema defaults (2019/2025), which is a minor gap.

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 and resource ('Year-by-year profile of one installation') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: cargo handled in tonnes by navigation type, cargo berthings, and mean waiting/operation/berth times. This is far more specific than the sibling tools (estimate_*_co2, compare_ports, find_installation), so an agent can distinguish purpose without opening the schema.

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 rather than stated: the profile is scoped to 'one installation,' which implicitly contrasts with compare_ports (multiple) and suggests find_installation to resolve the code. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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