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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds the non-obvious availability rule that static topics resolve before the mirror is initialized. It does not describe what mirror_status returns or what a snapshot limit notice looks like, which would be the remaining valuable detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and topic list, no filler. The topic enumeration is slightly listy but each item maps to a real enum value an agent must choose among.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, and the description explains the tool's role plus the initialization caveat, so an agent can call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as which topic to pick for type designators versus ratings.

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 topic, filter, limit, and offset with enums and bounds. The description only broadly gestures at filter construction and snapshot limits, adding little beyond the structured fields; 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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resource categories: certificate/rating codes, type designators, identity/medical guidance, mirror status. This clearly separates it from the sibling verify/search tools, which act on individual airmen rather than returning reference vocabularies, though it never explicitly names that contrast.

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?

Explicitly says how to use the output ("construct lookup filters and interpret snapshot limits") and adds a real precondition ("Static topics work before mirror initialization"). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, keeping it short of a 5.

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