get_port_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a significant behavioral trait: the default 2-hour window unless timeFrom is given. This is valuable information. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., pagination, ordering). For a read-only tool, some behavior is disclosed, but not comprehensively.

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 two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies a critical default behavior. No redundant filler or repetition of schema info. The content is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters all documented in the schema and no output schema, the description provides the key missing context: the default time window. The tool is moderately simple, and the description covers the main behavioral nuance. It doesn't discuss the return structure, but without an output schema that is expected. The presence of many siblings could have been handled with differentiation, but that's a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions timeFrom in relation to the default window, but that is already stated in the schema's description for timeFrom. Thus, the description adds no meaningful supplemental parameter semantics.

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 states the action clearly: 'Get port events (arrivals/departures) for a specific port.' It specifies the resource (port) and the type of data (events). While it distinguishes from vessel-specific event tools like get_port_events_by_vessel, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_port_events or search_port_events_by_port, which are similar port-event tools. The verb 'Get' and resource 'port events' are specific enough, but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 implicitly advises on a key usage condition: 'Covers only the last 2 hours unless timeFrom is given.' That hints at when to set timeFrom. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_port_events or search_port_events_by_port, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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