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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the nature of the data (provider history, crowd-sourced reports), which hints at reliability, but says nothing about freshness, coverage gaps, or what happens for unknown tails.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the resource and scope come first and the usage cue follows. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back and when to reach for it. Minor gaps remain around result shape and behavior for unrecognized tail numbers.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, including an example format, the schema already carries the semantics. The description's "by tail number" restates rather than extends that, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: WiFi provider history for one aircraft by tail number, plus the content returned (crowd-sourced reports, fleet assignment). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_flight_wifi or get_airline_wifi, though it never names them directly.

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?

"Use when the exact airframe is known" gives a clear triggering condition that implicitly contrasts with flight-level or airline-level lookups. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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