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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructivecars. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema: kind=hdob returns only the newest 200 records, 'truncated' indicates missing data, and the response is empty when no aircraft flew in the window. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence earns its place: it explains what the tool returns, redirects to two siblings, and discloses a key result-limiting behavior before the schema details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the important operational details: data source, sibling tool boundaries, HDOB limits/truncation, and empty-response behavior. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds valuable runtime semantics for kind=hdob (200-record limit, roughly 1–2 hours of data, truncated indicator), which goes beyond the bare enum definition. It does not add much for hours or storm, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 a specific resource ('Hurricane Hunter aircraft reconnaissance'), names the data products (VDM and HDOB), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_observations and get_tropical. An agent can immediately tell what this tool returns and what it is not.

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 description gives explicit routing guidance: use get_observations for METAR/surface stations)Skip and get_tropical for NHC cones/tracks/watches. It also clarifies that this tool returns aircraft measurements. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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