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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are ranked by severity, reasons are in plain language, and private-aircraft-only restrictions are segregated, which prevents a concrete misreporting failure mode.

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: the first front-loads scope and ranking, the second handles the misuse caveat and exclusions. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are unnecessary. Given a zero-required-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope, normalization (severity ranking, plain-language reasons), a data-quality caveat, and an explicit exclusion — everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret it.

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%, but the schema only says the single parameter is "true or false" with no explanation of its effect. The description supplies that missing meaning by explaining that private-aircraft-only restrictions are separated out, which is what the flag plausibly governs, adding value over the schema's label-only text.

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 (every current FAA disruption in U.S. airspace) and enumerates the concrete types covered: ground stops, ground delay programs, arrival/departure delays, airspace flow programs, and real closures. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_airport_status or get_airport_forecast without needing their schemas.

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 states a when-not boundary ("Not for flight planning") and warns about a common misuse (private-aircraft-only restrictions must not be reported as closures). It does not, however, name a sibling alternative for the flight-planning use case, so routing to the right tool is still partly inferential.

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