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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the fetch is live from an external database and enumerates the exact derived metrics (point count, max thickness, max camber as chord fraction with chordwise locations), which substitutes for the absent output schema.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and its outputs, the second handles the input source. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (the three geometry metrics and their units/locations), so an agent knows exactly what to expect from a call.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces this by giving concrete name examples and noting that geometry is derived from the raw (x,y) coordinates tied to include_coordinates, but adds little syntax beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verbs (fetch, compute) and a specific resource (one airfoil's coordinate file plus derived geometry) with named outputs. It also differentiates itself from the sibling uiuc_airfoil_search by naming it as the source of valid airfoil names.

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 directs the agent to obtain the name from uiuc_airfoil_search before calling, which establishes the workflow context. It does not, however, state any when-not-to-use conditions or limitations on the database.

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