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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is 'indicative,' the entity is a broker under 14 CFR Part 295, and the listing is not an offer of transportation until a carrier confirms in writing. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the fleet attributes, followed by necessary legal caveats. The only minor redundancy is the repeated 'indicative' and slightly drawn-out broker disclaimer, but every clause contributes useful context.

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 catalog with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately names the expected output fields and important legal limitations. It does not describe return format or filtering behavior, but the input schema covers filters and no output schema exists to detail.

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% and all six parameters have clear descriptions, so the schema fully carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed at this coverage level.

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 names the resource ('reference fleet') and enumerates the data fields the tool exposes: range, cruise, wingspan, balanced field length, and indicative hourly rate. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Lists' or 'Returns,' but the meaning is clear and the tool is readily distinguishable from its airport/runway/quote siblings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_runway, estimate_flight_time, or get_quote. The legal and broker-status caveats are useful context but do not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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