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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the score's methodology (YoY growth, weighted categories), states the data is 'annual since 1992,' and notes 'Updates: annually.' This clarifies the temporal scope and update cadence beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences: the first covers the core functionality and outputs, the second gives precise usage contexts, and the third states update frequency. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (health_score, per-certificate KPI breakdown, methodology_version). It covers the tool's purpose, methodology, historical depth, and update cadence, making it complete for a simple optional-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the 'days' parameter well. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a 0-100 US pilot-supply funnel health score with specific output fields (health_score, per-certificate KPI breakdown, methodology_version). It uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource (pilot-supply funnel health score), and the detailed definition distinguishes it from generic sibling 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Call when the user asks about pilot shortage, pilot supply, flight training demand, or aviation workforce trends, or when timing airline hiring plans, flight-school expansion, or trainer-aircraft demand forecasts.' This tells the agent exactly when to select this tool over alternatives.

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