search_ports

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, result limits, partial matching behavior, or any side effects. The schema includes limit and nextToken, but the description does not clarify that this is a paginated listing or how results are structured.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without padding. Every word contributes meaning.

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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination workflow, or any constraints beyond the schema. An agent might infer pagination from limit/nextToken but there is no explicit guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the parameters in natural language but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., data formats, examples, or dependencies). It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 action (search) and the resource (ports) and lists the search criteria (name, country, type, size, region, harbor size, harbor use). It is specific and verb-driven, distinguishing it from tools like get_port which fetch individual ports.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_port, search_vessels) or any context on typical use cases. The description provides no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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