search_port_events_by_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious time-window default ('only the last 2 hours unless timeFrom is given'), which is important. But it omits other behavioral details such as result ordering, output shape, or explicit read-only confirmation, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 wasted words. It states the core action and the most important behavioral caveat efficiently.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with no output schema and 5 parameters. The description covers the primary search behavior and the key time-window caveat, but it does not describe return values, pagination behavior, or how this relates to similar sibling tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 little beyond the schema, though it reinforces the relationship between timeFrom and the 2-hour default already present in 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('port events'), and identifies the filtering dimension ('by port name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_port_events_by_vessel.

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 when looking up port events by port name, and it notes the 2-hour default window. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving selection guidance mostly to the tool name.

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