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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the sound level is a modelled estimate, not a measurement, and may differ by 5-10 dB. It also discloses the loudest-first ordering. No contradiction with annotations 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 front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then the key uncertainty caveat, then the use cases. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only geospatial tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential invocation needs: location, optional threshold, output ordering, unit, and the purpose of finding a hex. Without an output schema, it could mention result limits or data freshness, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including lat/lon being WGS84 within the Netherlands and min_db defaulting to 45. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists aircraft currently over or near a location in the Netherlands, ordered loudest first, with a modelled dB(A) level. It also names concrete use cases, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools meld_herrie and 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 explicitly says to use it to find the hex of an aircraft to report with meld_herrie, or to answer 'what is that plane?'. This gives clear invocation context and points to a sibling, though it does not explicitly mention when to prefer top_meldingen or when not to use this tool.

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