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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description's real contribution is the redaction gate that causes all calls to fail by default and the disclaimer that these fields are not authoritative certification or fitness determinations. That is valuable context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't describe the response shape or how redaction is turned off.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then the authoritative caveat, then the ID source and blocking precondition. Nothing is padding, though the ID-source list slightly duplicates the 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?

A single-parameter read tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations – the description supplies the one thing none of those carry: the redaction prerequisite and the non-authoritative nature of the data. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema's own parameter description already covers the A/C-plus-seven-digits format, the "not a certificate number" warning, and the source tools. The description merely restates that provenance, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read the FAA snapshot's informational medical class, medical dates, and BasicMed dates for one airman Unique ID" names a specific verb, resource, and field scope, which cleanly separates it from siblings like faa_airmen_verify_certificate and faa_airmen_get_type_ratings that return certification or rating data.

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 states explicitly where the input comes from (faa_airmen_verify_certificate, faa_airmen_search_instructors, faa_airmen_verify_remote_pilot) and names the blocking condition: every call is rejected while the operator's personal-data redaction is on, which is on by default. An agent knows both the precondition and the failure mode before calling.

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