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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the pricing model (entry-into-service price inflated by US CPI, returned in both nominal and 2024 dollars) and the candidate-list behavior on ambiguous matches, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns and then covers input format and ambiguity handling. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long enough to be slightly taxing.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return fields, and the annotations cover safety. The pricing basis and candidate-fallback behavior are the remaining non-obvious details, and both are stated, leaving only minor gaps (e.g. rounding or units).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same id-or-name convention and hints that the year acts as a disambiguator, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('in-game catalogue price of a new aircraft in a given year') and pins the scope to catalogue prices rather than market/resale values. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling aircraft_catalog (a lookup) without opening either 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?

Explains the accepted input ('an id from aircraft_catalog or part of the name') and the ambiguity fallback ('when several types match and the year does not settle it, returns candidates'). It gives clear usage context but never explicitly says when not to use it or names a preferred alternative tool.

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