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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of data freshness, whether results are live or historical, pagination, or potential rate limits. For a read-only query tool, the annotations cover safety profilers adequately, but the description adds minimal extra behavioral nuance.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The verb and core constraint are front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not state what the response will contain, how the parameters are interpreted (e.g., coordinate system, boundaries inclusive), or any format for altitude values. An agent would have to infer the bounding box semantics from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation, especially among many similar query_* siblings.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not—it only mentions 'geographic area' but never explains that lat_min/lat_max/lon_min/lon_max form a bounding box, nor does it mention the optional altitude_min/altitude_max filters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory to a domain-aware agent, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond what the names suggest.

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 specific action (Query), a concrete resource (ADS-B aircraft positions), and a clear scope (within a geographic area). This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like query_airports or query_ports, which target different resources, without needing to inspect schemas.

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: use this tool when you need aircraft positions inside a geographic area. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools that might be more appropriate for related queries (e.g., query_entities for a broader entity search). The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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