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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description spends its words on non-obvious semantics instead: filters only apply to owner-cleared facts, so an aircraft with no published seat count can never match a seats filter. It also discloses the return shape (owner_approved block) versus the public record.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filter set, then the filtering caveat, then the alternative-tool routing. No restatement of the title and nothing wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description nonetheless tells the agent what comes back (the owner_approved block). For a six-parameter, fully-documented read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by adding the negative-match semantics for min_seats and the 'as the owner published it' framing that governs type and base_airport matching. It does not add format or interaction details for limit or the two boolean signals beyond what the schema states.

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 plus the exact filter dimensions (seats, base airport, type, charter/sales signal) and names the sibling it is not: 'call get_aircraft for the public record'. An agent can distinguish this from detail-fetch tools without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_aircraft when the public record is needed, which is the main sibling disambiguation. It does not address the other siblings (check_availability, estimate_charter, send_buyer_inquiry), but those are clearly a different task class.

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