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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals exact integer crossing arithmetic, no floating point/epsilon, squared-distance standoff, non-convex support, altitude-layer scoping, and breach naming behavior. This goes well beyond the 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?

Three dense sentences all earn their place: the core operation, the exactness guarantees, and the advisory scope. The critical behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 complex geometric tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it specifies inputs, exact method, edge semantics (altitude layer, non-convex footprints), breach reporting, and authority limitations. Nothing needed to correctly choose and invoke it 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 complete, so the description only needs to add meaning, and it does: margin_micro_deg is clarified as a strict squared-distance comparator with no square root, and track_micro_deg is framed as a segment sequence for breach naming. It does not exhaustively re-map every cell field, but the schema already covers them.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: it decides containment of a track against convective cell boundaries and names what a breach must report. The 'Advisory only; not a dispatch or flight-planning authority' sentence separates it from atc/planning siblings, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the operation's scope and an explicit non-use ('Advisory only; not a dispatch or flight-planning authority'). However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition under which a sibling such as atc.assert_4d_deconfliction should be used instead.

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