Vessel Name Resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and no destructiveness. The description adds context by specifying the output is 'ranked MMSI/IMO candidates with matched/missing signals and confidence', which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict them.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core functionality. Every part is meaningful and no unnecessary words.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the many optional parameters, authentication options, or return format beyond 'ranked candidates'. More details are needed for an AI agent to use it 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?

With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It only mentions 'messy vessel name' without explaining other key parameters like provider, credentialProfile, fallbackPolicy, or limit. The added meaning over the schema is minimal.

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 resolves messy vessel names to ranked MMSI/IMO candidates, using a specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'vessel name'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like vessel_search by focusing on fuzzy matching from B/L text.

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 usage when a messy vessel name is available (e.g. from B/L text) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vessel_search or vessel_track, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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