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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write with possible external data. The description adds valuable context: supplied fields are preserved, there is an unusual scale inversion (1 on input = like-new; output on 0-1 scale), and returned values are compatible with value_aircraft. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover idempotency or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then scale semantics, then usage. It is compact but packs several sentences; the scale warning is repeated from the schema, which is necessary for a trap but slightly increases length.

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 output schema exists, the description needn't explain returns. The description covers the key behavior, the input/output scale mismatch, and integration with value_aircraft. It could be more complete about what fields are imputed and any side effects, but it's solid for this tool.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the scale trap for exterior_quality and interior_quality and confirming that registration/make_model_id identify the aircraft. But year, and any other param semantics, are left undocumented.

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 action (ML fill-in of missing fields) on a specific resource (airframe, engine, condition specs) with the business purpose (before a valuation). It's clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling infer_aircraft_specs, which likely overlaps.

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?

Provides the when-to-use context (before a valuation) and names the downstream tool (value_aircraft). However, it doesn't address exclusions or clarify when to prefer it over infer_aircraft_specs, its closest sibling.

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