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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by explaining the year filter semantics and what availabilityInYear means (sold new vs used only). It still omits anything about result size or pagination behavior.

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 dense sentences that front-load the resource and then the conditional year behavior; there is little waste, though the attribute enumeration verges on listing return fields the output schema already defines.

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 read-only, non-destructive catalog lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the ambiguous behavior (year filtering and availability semantics). The only real gap is routing guidance against the sibling price 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 67%, above the midway mark, and the description largely restates the schema-documented year semantics while explaining the derived availabilityInYear field. It adds nothing for lang or category, which the schema leaves partially bare.

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 resource (aircraft types in the game catalog) and enumerates the attributes returned, so the agent knows exactly what it resolves to. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling aircraft_price, which appears to cover overlapping pricing data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as aircraft_price, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the mechanical effect of the year parameter. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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