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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them: the result is a live snapshot ('right now') and the query box is capped at 10 degrees. It does not say what happens when the cap is exceeded, whether results are rate-limited or truncated, or roughly how many aircraft come back.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the constraint second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 four-required-parameter live sensor read with no output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description should say what a result record contains (callsign, position, altitude?) and whether the response is bounded. Those gaps matter for an agent deciding whether one 10-degree box suffices or whether it must tile multiple calls.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it contributes the important 10-degree extent limit on the box. It adds nothing about coordinate system (WGS84 decimal degrees), ordering of south/west/north/east, or validation errors, so the four required params remain only partially characterized.

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?

Names a specific resource (aircraft broadcasting ADS-B) and a precise spatial scope (a bounding box of up to 10 degrees), which distinguishes it from ship, satellite and rail siblings. The verb is only implied ('every aircraft ... right now'), but the query semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'right now' implicitly contrasts with the sibling *_at variants (e.g. cell_sensor_ais_fi_at) for historical queries, but the agent must infer that routing itself.

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