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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true but say nothing about side effects; the description adds that it creates a durable account-owned report and queues asynchronous PDF generation, plus a PRO/Enterprise entitlement requirement. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured data, though it omits failure modes and whether duplicate reports are allowed.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then side effects, then the entitlement gate. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the write/side-effect profile and access requirements. It is slightly incomplete on the three input parameters, whose meanings and formats remain undocumented at the description level.

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 33% and the description says nothing about registration, make_model_id, or the nested aircraft_info payload. The legacy 0–1 quality-scale caveat lives only in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (generate a Windsock verified value report) and scopes it ('from instant valuation data (contemporary model only)'), which implicitly separates it from value_aircraft (instant valuation) and get_report (retrieval). An agent can tell what is produced and from what input without opening the schema.

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 real eligibility constraints — 'contemporary model only' and 'Requires Windsock PRO or Enterprise' — that tell the agent when the call can succeed, and the 'from instant valuation data' phrasing implies value_aircraft is the upstream step. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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