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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/no-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: search returns partial records, and complete information requires the detail tools, plus a citation/URL expectation.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('searches these three record types together') before the routing hint. No wasted clauses, though it compresses three distinct ideas into one sentence rather than structuring them.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the partial-vs-complete relationship to detail tools, and URL citation. Pagination and language fallback behavior live in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 80% and the schema already documents limit, offset, query, and the lang fallback behavior, so the structured data carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the kind/lang/limit parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource scope: a single search that spans aircraft, airport and article records. The word 'together' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-domain siblings search_aircraft/search_airports/search_articles, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use the detail tools (get_aircraft, get_airport, get_article, etc.) when complete information is needed rather than the summary this search returns. It does not state when to prefer the specialized search_* siblings over this combined one, which is the only gap.

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