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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive intent. The description goes beyond that by revealing the data is a 28-day snapshot, returns 'cycle provenance,' and is 'Reference data only; not live airport status or NOTAMs.' This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: a precise resource statement, a compact list of return data, grounding use-case examples, and a critical reference-only warning. No filler or repetition; the most important scoping language is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter, no-required-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description is thorough: it lists the returned identifier, location, type/status, runway, tower, pagination, and provenance fields, and covers appropriate usage and the important not-live caveat. Combined with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds above it by giving concrete example queries that map to parameter combinations: 'find airports near a city' (query), 'public-use airports in Ohio' (facility_use, state), 'with a 5,000-foot runway' (min_runway_length_ft), and 'resolve an identifier' (query). This aids an agent in choosing and composing parameters beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource (U.S. airports and other landing facilities in the FAA 28-day NASR snapshot), then enumerates the exact return fields. It further distinguishes the tool by tying it to use cases like 'find airports near a city' and 'resolve an identifier before a profile call,' which separates it from the sibling runway-search and compare tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use examples ('find airports near a city', 'public-use airports in Ohio with a 5,000-foot runway', 'resolve an identifier before a profile call') and a clear exclusion: 'Reference data only; not live airport status or NOTAMs.' It does not fully name the sibling alternatives such as faa_public_aviation_search_runways or faa_public_aviation_compare_airports, which would make it a 5.

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