Vessel Schedule

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that results include source metadata, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be restructured to break down key aspects (e.g., identifiers vs. filters) without increasing verbosity.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, required parameter combinations, credential usage, or how to narrow results with time windows and filters. A more comprehensive description is needed.

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 and 13 parameters, the description only explains identifiers (mmsi, imo, etc.) but fails to clarify parameters like windowStart, windowEnd, limit, provider, credentialProfile, oneTimeCredential, fallbackPolicy, and coverageHint. This leaves significant semantic gaps for correct usage.

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 scheduled carrier port calls for a vessel, listing multiple identifiers (MMSI, IMO, vessel name, voyage number, carrier SCAC) and source metadata. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'carrier_schedule_search' and 'port_calls' by focusing on vessel-specific schedule retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'carrier_schedule_search' or 'port_calls'. It lacks instructions on prerequisites, combinations of parameters, or scenarios where this tool is preferred/avoided.

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