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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that rates are 'indicative', which is useful context, but does not disclose pagination, full return shape, or filtering behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates attributes. No redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with a leading verb.

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 no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea of return fields (seats, range, rate, models) but omits pagination and the exact format. For a listing tool with annotations covering safety, it is adequately but not richly complete.

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, including the enum for category and the market example. The description adds that the market is the market where models are most flown, but does not explain the filter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description states the resource (aircraft sizes) and its attributes (seats, range, hourly rate, models), and names the specific category range. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_charter_estimate or find_operators, but the resource is clearly distinct.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The schema indicates both parameters are optional, implying a broad listing, but the description does not state that it returns all aircraft when unfiltered.

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