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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the dependency, warns about year, and explains fleet-wide behavior when aircraftId is missing. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or other operational details that could affect invocation.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose upfront followed by critical requirements and warnings. Every line earns its place, and the warnings are clearly highlighted.

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?

The description covers the prerequisites and key usage, but does not explain what the tool returns or how it relates to similar tools like find_available_slots. For a simple check tool it is mostly complete, but lacks some context for agents to fully anticipate behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by instructing to calculate from/to from context and not ask the user, and explaining the aircraftId omission behavior. This adds significant value.

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 states 'Check availability' which is a clear verb+resource but does not explicitly mention 'aircraft' or distinguish this from sibling tools like find_available_slots. The name carries the specificity, but the description itself is too vague and borders on tautology.

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?

Provides explicit system requirement to call get_dispatch_context_and_time first, a warning about year guessing, and conditional usage for aircraftId. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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