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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it's a public API with no auth required, MIT license, and the source (ADS-B DB). It also explains what data is returned (airport details, airline details), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then details the return data, then provides context and source. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. The examples are concrete and the source/license info is useful for trust assessment.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input format, output contents, and source/licensing. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention error cases (e.g., unknown callsign) or rate limits, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the callsign parameter well. The description adds value by explaining the callsign format (airline ICAO code + flight number), providing examples, and noting that callsigns are broadcast by ATC transponders. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool resolves a flight callsign to origin/destination airports and operating airline, with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('flight callsign'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adsbdb.aircraft.lookup and adsbdb.airline.lookup by focusing on callsign-based route lookup, and provides concrete examples (BAW123, UAL456).

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 explains the use case ('enriching ADS-B flight tracking data with route context') and provides format guidance for callsigns. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling context (adsbdb.aircraft.lookup, adsbdb.airline.lookup) makes the differentiation implicit. The examples and format explanation give clear usage guidance.

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