gulf_maritime_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a triage recommendation, exposure signal, decision-readiness score, and evidence gaps. It also clearly states what it does not do (resolve ownership, verify identity, provide legal advice) and requires human review.

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 paragraph but front-loaded with the core action and geographic scope. Each sentence adds value, though the long list of risk factors slightly reduces conciseness. Still, it is well-structured.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input expectations, output components, and usage constraints. It does not detail exact return format but lists what the output includes, making it adequate for agent decision-making.

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?

The schema defines a single object parameter but the description adds semantic detail by listing expected fields (vessel/voyage, route, cargo, counterparties, etc.) and linking to a specific schema, which helps the agent construct the request.

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 uses specific verbs ('Triage maritime sanctions and chokepoint-disruption exposure') and identifies the exact geographic scope (Strait of Hormuz, Persian/Arabian Gulf, etc.). It lists key risk factors, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like cis_secondary_sanctions_exposure or middle_corridor_deal_risk.

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 states when to use (for pre-compliance evidence triage of Gulf maritime exposure) and explicitly lists limitations (no live retrieval, no legal advice, human review required). It does not name alternative tools but provides boundary conditions.

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