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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: filters only apply to owner-cleared facts, so an unpublished seat count never matches a seats filter — this prevents the agent from misreading empty results as 'no such aircraft'. It also names the returned owner_approved block despite no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and filter list, then the critical caveat, then the return shape and the sibling alternative. No sentence is filler; each carries either scope, a filter caveat, or routing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned owner_approved block, and all parameters are covered by the schema. It omits result ordering/pagination behavior beyond the limit cap, which is the only material gap for a list tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (type, limit, charter, for_sale, min_seats, base_airport) are already documented with examples and bounds; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the filter set but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (search/list) and resource (aircraft listed on Owner Connect) and enumerates the filter dimensions in the same breath. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_aircraft by framing this as the owner-approved listing view versus the public record.

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 the agent to get_aircraft when the public record is wanted, which is a real alternative-selection cue. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when searching unlisted aircraft), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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