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

Annotations already convey readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the average-catalogue-price-plus-wholesale-factor structure and the exact calculation formula, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and efficiently front-loaded: it defines the map, gives the formula, and names the companion tool in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only map with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the map represents, how to perform the wholesale calculation, and how to integrate with search_avionics. No critical operational context 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 precisely identifies the tool as an avionics-id-to-price map used for equipment-adjusted valuations, with a clear formula for computing wholesale value. It distinguishes itself from search_avionics, whose role is resolving text to ids, and from value_aircraft by focusing specifically on the panel-price map.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: use this map to value an aircraft's panel from avionics ids, and pair it with search_avionics for text-to-id resolution. It does not explicitly name exclusions or contrast with value_aircraft, but the workflow is clear enough for an agent to select the tool correctly.

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