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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: a consistent 28-day source cycle, ranking by longest published runway, and framing as a technical evidence view. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds real behavioral value.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then lists compared fields, then gives usage examples and a boundary. The long enumeration of comparison dimensions is dense but informative, and no sentence is wasted. It is slightly list-heavy but well-structured.

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 usefully enumerates the compared dimensions (runway dimensions, ILS, tower codes, provenance, etc.) and the ranking basis. It is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns conceptually, though it could say more about result structure (e.g., whether output is a ranked table).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 2-to-8 facility range but adds no syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (compare) on a specific resource (two to eight FAA NASR facilities) and enumerates the compared dimensions. It does not name sibling tools like faa_public_aviation_airport_profile or faa_public_aviation_search_airports, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation but the compare scope is clear.

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 provides concrete example queries ('compare JFK, LAX, and ORD runway capabilities') and a domain boundary (not an operational suitability decision or navigation source). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling airport profile or search tools.

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