get_vessel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation (get) with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose behavior like error handling (e.g., if vessel not found), response format, or potential rate limits. For a simple get tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 very concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length, such as noting the identifier identifier default. Still, it earns a high score for being succinct.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is somewhat brief. It doesn't explain what the response contains (e.g., vessel name, flag, dimensions), which could be useful for an agent deciding if this tool fits a query. The presence of many sibling tools raises the need for more context, but the current description is minimally complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (vesselId and idType). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific vessel' clearly states the action (get) and resource (vessel), but it is vague about what 'detailed information' includes. Given many sibling tools like get_vessel_position and get_vessel_ownership, the description does not differentiate this tool from others, making it less helpful for an AI agent to choose correctly.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vessel_position or get_vessel_classification, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., needing IMO number). This is a significant gap.

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