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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is deterministic, grants nothing, files nothing, does not affirm the operation can be performed, and explicitly lists sources not consulted via the `not_covered` field (NOTAM, terrain, obstacles, meteo). It also notes that each output line names the authority and source with a review date.

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 Spanish version is long but front-loaded with purpose; the entire English translation duplicates that content with no added information. The bilingual redundancy wastes tokens and makes the definition inappropriately sized for an agent.

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 complex 7-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, limitations, output-field semantics, and annotations cover the safety profile; the output schema handles return values. Remaining gaps are parameter formats and sibling routing, but the core is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description partially compensates by explaining the conceptual roles of the point, date, aircraft, weight, and class marking. It says nothing about formats for lat/lon or date, and does not explain the `night` or `environment` parameters, leaving real gaps.

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 ('Calcula') and resource (trámites for flying at a point/date/aircraft), with clear scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like uas_zones or rules_catalogue, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this composite tool over the raw-data tools.

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 scenario is obvious from the description ('para volar en un punto de España, en una fecha y con una aeronave concreta'), implying when it should be used. However, it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it; exclusions only concern its output ('NO concede permisos'), not tool selection.

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