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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: what the no-argument call returns (national totals, injuries, yearly series), that state/airport arguments alter the breakdown, and that data is US-government public domain. Minor gaps such as invalid-slug handling are not disclosed, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the topic and then a compact explanation of argument-dependent behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or schema field names.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers the no-argument return contents, the optional breakdown behavior, the slug format requirement, and the data provenance. Nothing essential for calling this tool 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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the slug format (lowercase hyphenated) and the 'state OR airport' exclusivity, which goes beyond the schema's generic phrasing. This is genuinely useful guidance for constructing valid calls.

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 providing FAA-reported laser incidents aimed at aircraft, with a specific verb implied by 'Reported' and a distinct resource (laser incidents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wildlife_strikes and drone_sightings by naming the exact incident type, and it differentiates behavior by arguments: no args for national totals/injuries/yearly series; state or airport for breakdowns.

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 gives explicit usage context: no arguments for national data, or pass a state/airport slug for a breakdown. It also states the required slug format and that state OR airport are alternatives, implying mutual exclusivity. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the domain clarity makes the choice straightforward.

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