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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: this is a forward-looking summary ('expected later in the day') and it explicitly discloses that it omits active constraints and runway closures available elsewhere.

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 what is returned and followed by the escalation path to the advisory. The first sentence is a dense run-on list, but each item earns its place by telling the agent what fields to expect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still scopes the response (summary vs. full advisory text). Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; the only shortfall is absent guidance against the other four siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing a global snapshot rather than anything filterable, and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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 and resource ('Get the FAA Command Center's current operations plan') and enumerates the contents: terminal programs, en-route initiatives, UTC times, likelihood, and ATCSCC announcements. It explicitly distinguishes itself from faa_delays_get_advisory by describing itself as a summary that the advisory expands upon.

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?

Names the alternative sibling (faa_delays_get_advisory) and the condition that selects it: when the full plan text, active constraints, or runway closures are needed rather than this summary. It gives no guidance versus the other siblings (get_airport_status, list_advisories), so routing is clear but incomplete.

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