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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key output (faa_code) and that this is a search, but says nothing about result limits, matching semantics (prefix vs fuzzy), or empty-result behavior - a moderate gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: what is searched, then what it returns and where that value goes. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only search with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential question an agent has: what comes back and how to use it. Only edge-case behavior (no matches, result caps) 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already gives an example query, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by saying the query matches manufacturer/model/type, but no syntax or matching rules beyond the schema's example.

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 ('Search aircraft models') and scopes the search field to manufacturer/model/type, which distinguishes it from get_aircraft (single lookup) and search_registry. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives useful chaining guidance - use the returned faa_code with get_estimate - which implies the tool's role in a workflow. It never states when to prefer this over get_aircraft or search_registry, nor what to do when the search returns nothing.

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