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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real value beyond them: what the output is used for (value_aircraft, impute_aircraft_specs, reference lookups) and that it is an id-resolution step. It says nothing about matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact) or ordering of multiple hits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope and return type front-loaded before the usage condition. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return structure; it correctly focuses on purpose and workflow placement. Minor gap: no guidance on handling ambiguous multi-result searches versus the default limit of 25.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by showing a query that mixes year and model ('2015 Cirrus SR22'), implying the search tolerates extra tokens such as year, which the schema's 'Cessna 172' example alone does not convey.

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 (text search over FAA make/model names) and names the concrete artifact returned (make_model_id values). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the neighboring search_aircraft or lookup_aircraft tools, so the agent must infer that this searches model types rather than individual aircraft.

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 concrete trigger scenario ('resolve "2015 Cirrus SR22" to a canonical id when no tail number is available'), which implicitly tells the agent to use a tail-number-based tool when one exists. It stops short of naming that alternative tool, so the when-not guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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