digitraffic_port_calls

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

With no annotations, the description does add real context: the upstream source (Fintraffic Digitraffic Marine API) and its CC BY 4.0 licensing, plus the fact that both live and scheduled calls are included. It is silent on operational behavior an agent needs — pagination/truncation via maxResults (max 200), behavior on empty port lists, refresh cadence, and whether the feed is open-access or keyed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list and attribution packed efficiently into parentheticals. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of semantics — yet it explains none of the parameter behaviors and nothing about result size or truncation. For a filtering tool with a defaulted array of port codes, that leaves the agent guessing at invocation correctness.

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 carry the burden for all four parameters and does not. It never explains that 'ports' expects UN/LOCODE codes like the FIHEL default, what cargoOnly filters on, what maxResults caps (200), or what vesselQuery matches against (name vs IMO). Only a loose hint is available via the 'cargo status' and 'IMO' mentions in the field list.

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 (fetch) and resource (live and scheduled Baltic & Finnish vessel port calls) and enumerates the returned fields (ETA, ETD, ATA, ATD, berth, IMO, cargo status, agents), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling digitraffic_port_congestion_summary, which covers overlapping port data.

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 never says when to choose this tool over digitraffic_port_congestion_summary, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name and the field list.

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