get_port_events_by_vessel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, but it only restates the function without noting default sorting, pagination, or filtering capabilities. The input schema covers parameter details, so the bar is lowered, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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, direct sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object. It is concise and to the point without unnecessary details.

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 (8 parameters, pagination, filtering, sorting) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., a list of events, fields returned) or mention pagination behavior. The description should provide more context about the returned data and usage examples.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats the vessel focus. It does not clarify any ambiguous fields or provide context beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('port events') with a specific scope ('for a specific vessel'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_port_events' (which likely targets a port) and 'search_port_events_by_vessel' (which implies search semantics vs direct 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 implies when to use it: when you have a known vessel identifier and need its port events. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should be avoided (e.g., when searching with flexible criteria, use 'search_port_events_by_vessel'). The guidance 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.