Vessel Area

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that results are 'latest known positions' with 'provider source metadata' and bounding box constraints, but does not disclose pagination, error handling, or rate limits. Some value added beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested credential objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits how to use credential profiles, the meaning of fallbackPolicy and coverageHint, and the output format. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions bounding box. Parameters like limit, provider, credentialProfile, oneTimeCredential, fallbackPolicy, and coverageHint are unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states the tool returns latest known positions for vessels within a bounding box, including coordinate constraints and provider source metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vessel_position (single vessel) and vessel_track (time series).

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 implies use for area-based queries via bounding box but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like vessel_position or vessel_track for single vessels or tracking. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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