get_vessels_in_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the unit requirement (METRES) and implies a read-only operation (find), but does not mention pagination, time window constraints, or any side effects. The description adds some value beyond the schema by emphasizing units, but lacks deeper behavioral context like rate limits or data freshness.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical unit warning. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and unit, but does not address pagination, time window behavior, or result format. For a tool with this complexity, more context would be helpful, but the schema covers parameter details. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds the critical unit clarification for radius, which is valuable. However, it does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., timeFrom/timeTo window) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Find all vessels within a radius of a point.' It specifies the resource (vessels) and the action (find within radius), and the emphasis on units (METRES) adds precision. It distinguishes from siblings like get_vessels_in_area by the radius-based search, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 usage for radius-based vessel search but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vessels_in_area or search_vessels. The unit clarification is helpful but not a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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