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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: an empty list means ENAIRE returned no zones for the rectangle, while `available: false` means the query did not happen, and both should not be read as a statement about the sky.

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 content is front-loaded with purpose and useful distinctions, but it is duplicated in Spanish and English. For an AI agent, the second language block repeats the same information and does not earn its place, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure need not be explained. The description covers purpose, sibling distinction, result interpretation, and source authority well, but because input schema coverage is 0%, the lack of `bbox` format details is a notable gap for the only required parameter.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage and only one `bbox` string parameter. The description mentions a rectangle/bounding box, which loosely maps to the parameter, but it does not specify coordinate order, format, delimiter, or expected syntax, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid value from the definition alone.

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: returns UAS geographical zone polygons published by ENAIRE inside a bounding box, including kind, vertical limits, and update date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `flight_requirements` by saying it is a map layer, not a point verdict.

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?

Names the alternative tool `flight_requirements` and the condition that selects it: point verdicts. It also explains the meaning of an empty list versus `available: false`, giving the agent clear operational context for interpreting results and avoiding misuse.

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