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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that reports are anonymous and public in aggregate, that they feed map badges and daily/weekly rankings, that the loudest aircraft is reported if no identifier is provided, and the per-directory reporting limit. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond what annotations supply.

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 slightly long but every sentence carries needed information: the action, the public/aggregate behavior, identifier requirements/fallback, rate limiting, and the official-complaint redirect. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers essential details, but a few phrases like 'as a visitor does from the flight card' are illustrative rather than strictly necessary.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and meaningful side effects, the description covers the important constraints: required lat/lon, optional identifiers, fallback behavior, anonymity, and rate limits. It does not describe what the API returns, which is less critical for a report action because the side effect is clear; this is a minor gap.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the fallback: if hex/callsign are omitted, the loudest aircraft over the location is reported. It also points the agent to wat_vliegt_over as the source for the hex, adding meaning 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 a specific action ('report an aircraft as noisy') and the context (visitor action from the flight card on the live map). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which query aircraft ('wat_vliegt_over') and retrieve top reports ('top_meldingen').

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 says to use the hex from wat_vliegt_over or a callsign, names the official complaint alternative (BAS) and where to find it, and gives the deduplication constraint. This is explicit 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.