get_vessel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get detailed information'. It does not mention read-only behavior, response shape, error handling, or any prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though somewhat generic and under-specified compared to stronger examples that also provide usage context.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling vessel tools, yet the description does not explain what 'detailed information' returns or how it relates to the siblings. It is minimally viable but insufficient for confident tool selection in this context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already documents vesselId and idType, including the imo default, so no major gap exists.

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 a clear action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific vessel'). This distinguishes it by implication from sibling tools like get_vessel_position or get_vessel_eta, but it never explicitly defines what 'detailed information' includes or names alternatives.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of tools like get_vessel_position, get_vessel_eta, get_vessel_emissions, or get_vessel_casualties. The intended usage is only implied by the generic phrase 'detailed information', with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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