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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by describing the substance of the returned data, including that Art. 132-85/86 triggers can be waived with certificates and that screening radii come with a documented basis and version — useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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: a front-loaded question that anchors the tool to its consumer, then a dense enumeration of contents. Every clause carries information and the qualifying 'Reference only' lands at the end where it is easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is already handled, yet the description adds the domain framing (statute articles, waiver certificates, guideline version and sources) an agent needs to interpret the table. Zero parameters plus read-only annotations mean nothing is left uncovered.

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 is 4; there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for. The description correctly spends its words on return content instead of nonexistent inputs.

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 ('Returns the rule table') and immediately frames it as the data behind the sibling drone_flight_check, so an agent can separate the reference tool from the checking tool. It also enumerates the table's contents (triggers, category definitions, screening radii, guideline version), leaving no ambiguity about what comes back.

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 closing 'Reference only' signals this is consultative data rather than an action, which implicitly steers the agent to drone_flight_check for actual checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for performing a check, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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