search_ports

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It mentions filterable fields but omits behavioral details like case sensitivity, pagination behavior (though 'limit' and 'nextToken' are in schema), or return format. For a search tool with 9 optional parameters, more transparency is needed.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and efficiently enumerates all filter options. No wasted words.

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?

With 9 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, default behavior, or how filtering combinations work. Could be more complete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It simply lists the same parameter names used in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description doesn't clarify format or values beyond 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 verb 'Search' and resource 'ports', and lists eight specific filter criteria (name, country, type, size, region, harbor size, harbor use). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_port' (single port lookup) or 'search_port_events_by_port' (events).

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies usage for multi-criteria searches, but does not exclude when to prefer 'get_port' for exact matches or mention pagination. Adequate but lacks clear context.

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