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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: hourly updates, FAA ASWS data source, weighting of ground stops/closures vs delays, and breadth of affected airports. This goes well beyond the annotations to set accurate expectations about data freshness and calculation.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: the first defines the return value and methodology, the second gives concrete invocation scenarios, and the third states update frequency. It is front-loaded with the most decisive information and has no filler.

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, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names key output fields, explains the data source and weighting, specifies update cadence, and covers all likely current-snapshot use cases. The schema fills in the history parameter behavior, so nothing critical is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'days' parameter, including range, behavior, and tier requirement. The main description does not mention the parameter, but the schema description is thorough, so the baseline of 3 applies without additional semantic value needed.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Returns a 0-100 US airspace disruption index') and clearly identifies the resource and output fields (disruption_score, ground_stops, airports_affected). It also explains the weighting methodology, making it distinct from any sibling weather/risk 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 description explicitly states when to call the tool: when users ask about flight delays, ground stops, airport closures, current US air-travel disruption, or for freight re-routing and rebooking decisions. It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternate tool names, but the use-case guidance is strong and contextually clear.

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