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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns parsed structured fields and is critical for flight planning, which provides some behavioral context but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations already convey.

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 three sentences, front-loads key information (purpose, fields, uniqueness), and contains no redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description explains input well and notes the tool's unique value. It does not describe output format in detail, but that is handled by the output schema. A minor gap is the slight inconsistency between description and schema regarding multiple airports.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'one or more airports' while schema only allows a single ICAO code, causing a slight inconsistency. Overall, the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns active NOTAMs for airports, parsed into structured fields like NOTAM ID, classification, type, effective period, and summary text. It uses specific verbs ('return', 'parsed') and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming NOAA and CheckWX as alternatives that do not provide parsed NOTAMs.

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 explicitly positions the tool for flight planning and notes its uniqueness compared to NOAA and CheckWX, providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not, however, discuss specific scenarios where alternative tools might be more appropriate or mention any prerequisites.

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