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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'privacy-minimized', 'excludes contacts and remarks', and 'not a substitute for current NOTAMs, charts, or flight planning'. These go beyond annotations by clarifying scope and limitations, though it could further detail data freshness or potential null fields.

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 a single paragraph but contains multiple clauses listing fields, usage examples, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the field list is somewhat long. Still, every segment adds value—no filler. It is efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

The description comprehensively covers what the tool returns (a detailed list of fields), how to use it (examples and identifier types), and what it does not do (exclusions and NOTAM caveat). The schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists, so the field list serves as the return expectation. For a single-airport profile tool with low parameter complexity, this is complete.

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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters: 'airport' accepts multiple identifier types, and 'response_format' specifies markdown/json with default. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond examples; it reiterates the concept of using identifiers. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'one official FAA NASR facility profile' with a specific list of technical fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling search and compare tools by targeting single-airport profiles, and provides concrete query examples ('FAA profile for JFK', 'runways and approach equipment at KDEN'). This is a precise verb-resource statement with clear differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this for...' with concrete examples, and lists exclusions: 'excludes contacts and remarks' and 'not a substitute for current NOTAMs, charts, or flight planning'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (like the search or compare siblings), so it misses the 'alternatives' component, but the when/when-not guidance is strong.

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