Aviation Resources

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns both an image and text, supports page-to-page navigation fields, and tells the caller to cite viewerUrl. It does not cover permission or rate-limit behavior, but that is less critical for a read-only paging tool with an 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what is returned, and the remaining clauses cover usage, navigation, and citation. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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?

Given the rich schema, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: when to call it, what content it returns, how to page through results, and how to cite the page. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 the input schema already documents resourceId, pageNumber, and includeImage thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its mention of nextPageNumber/previousPageNumber appears to refer to output navigation fields rather than input parameters.

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 and resource: it returns one page of an FAA document from Aviation Resources, including the page image and full text. It also distinguishes the tool from search_documents by positioning it as the follow-up read step after searching.

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 explicitly says to use this tool after search_documents to read a page in full, inspect figures/charts/tables, or continue reading with nextPageNumber/previousPageNumber. That gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the sibling tool that precedes it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds that each entry carries an ID, a readiness flag, and area-of-operation/task counts, which is useful but largely overlaps the existing output schema. No pagination or ordering behavior is mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage cue. Minimal waste, though the enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 an output schema present, the description need not spell out return structure, and the annotation set covers safety. What is included gives an agent enough to know when to call it and roughly what comes back; only ordering/pagination details are absent, which is minor for a zero-parameter listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full, unfiltered listing, which is consistent with an empty input schema.

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 ('Lists every FAA Airman Certification Standard') and gives concrete domain examples (Private Pilot - Airplane, Instrument Rating - Airplane) so the agent knows exactly what population is returned. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like get_page and search_documents.

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 this first to find the ACS a lesson is for' gives a clear sequencing cue and a downstream use case. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns best-matching documents with best pages and snippets, and it tells the agent to follow up with get_page and cite viewerUrl.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, the corpus is scoped with useful examples, and the remaining sentences cover return shape and next-step usage. The description is compact and every sentence contributes.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety and the output schema exists, the description provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly: what corpus is searched, what results look like, and how to proceed to full-page reading. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema, including query syntax, pagination, limits, and resource filtering. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general search story, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search across FAA handbooks, advisory circulars, and other Aviation Resources documents, with named examples. It clearly distinguishes this lookup/search role from the follow-up reading role of get_page.

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 gives clear usage context: find where a topic is covered, then call get_page to read a page in full or see figures, and cite viewerUrl. It does not explicitly route between this tool and list_airman_certification_standards, so the alternative-tool guidance is not complete.

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