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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns 'pagination, cycle, and provenance', and it explicitly warns that the data is reference-only and must be verified independently. It does not describe rate limits or exact pagination mechanics, but the annotations plus the reference-data warning cover the main behavioral concerns.

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 two sentences plus a short warning. It front-loads the core purpose and filter types, then lists return fields, then gives examples, then ends with a safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only search tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filters, return fields, example queries, and a usage caveat. It does not explain pagination mechanics (limit/offset) in the description, but the schema covers those parameters and the description mentions pagination as a return field. The sibling tools are clearly differentiated, and the reference-data warning adds important context.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds a few semantic hints (e.g., 'water landing areas may be much wider than paved runways' is in the schema, not the description; the description mentions 'bounded technical filters' and lists filter categories). However, the description does not add much beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so a baseline 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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('U.S. FAA NASR runways'), and a precise scope ('bounded technical filters such as state, minimum published length/width, surface text, lighting, ILS, public use, and operational status'). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like faa_public_aviation_search_airports and faa_public_aviation_airport_profile.

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 concrete example queries ('operational Texas runways at least 8,000 feet', 'public-use paved runways in Alaska') and an explicit use case ('airport-site screening'). It also includes a clear exclusion: 'Reference data only; verify all performance and operational decisions independently.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when not to rely on it.

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