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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does mention the default scope ('checks all' when aircraftId is omitted) and the dependency on current date/time, but it does not describe the output shape, edge cases, or whether the action is purely read-only. Still, the most important behavioral trap is front-loaded.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second conveys the essential call-order prerequisite for accurate results.

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 simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary prerequisite and the parameter behavior. It leaves minor room for ambiguity about the exact shape of returned maintenance data, but overall it is sufficient for correct usage.

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 schema already fully documents aircraftId, so the baseline is elevated. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by stating that omitting the parameter checks all aircraft, which is not encoded in the input schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Forecast maintenance dates') and clarifies the optional aircraft scope. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_aircraft_hours or get_aircraft_availability.

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 clear operational guidance: it tells the agent to call get_dispatch_context_and_time first for accurate 'days remaining', and explains the behavior when aircraftId is omitted. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the instruction is enough to use this tool effectively.

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