bts_border_crossings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds scope facts ('monthly data by port, state, measure type') but nothing about response format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 tight sentences immediately state the primary resource and key coverages with no filler. The most identifying information is front-loaded, so an agent can quickly understand the tool and its scope.

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?

All five parameters are optional and fully described in the schema; the description gives the data scope and expected dimensions. Although there is no output schema or explicit mention of defaults/date range, the intersection of description and schema is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces that filtering is by port, state, and measure, but it does not materially enrich the individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific resource ('border crossing data at U.S. ports of entry'), lists relevant crossing types, and identifies geographic coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from the broader BTS transport-statistics sibling and other datasets.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling tool is mentioned. The description only states what the tool covers, leaving an agent to infer when to choose it over nearby tools like bts_transport_stats.

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