get_port_congestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that data is 'realistically mocked' and that live data requires a subscription, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also lists return fields and notes that the interface mirrors production, going beyond typical read-only disclosures.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' structure. Every sentence adds value, and the mock-data note and field list are essential.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a complete list of return keys and a clear parameter description. It also explains the mocking limitation, leaving no critical information missing for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by stating 'port_name: Port common name or UN/LOCODE', adding meaning beyond the bare string type. This gives the agent precise guidance on accepted formats.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get current congestion metrics for a port: vessel queue, wait times, capacity utilization, trend, and operational advisory.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_port_weather or get_vessel_positions.

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 for retrieving congestion metrics but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The mock-data note is useful but not a usage guideline. It would benefit from naming siblings, e.g., 'For weather conditions, use get_port_weather.'

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