aviation_sigmet

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing behavioral: it doesn't state that the call is a read-only fetch, whether polygons are global or bounded, whether results are cached/live, or what 'constraining the aircraft layer' implies operationally. The parenthetical hazard list is the only added context, and it describes content rather than behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical enumeration; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the hazard taxonomy gives the agent a decent sense of what comes back. However, the unexplained 'detail' modifier, absent scope (global vs. bbox-filtered), and lack of usage context leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

There is one parameter, 'detail', with default 'short' and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions it, so the agent has no idea what values it accepts or what changes between 'short' and any other mode — a real gap since it likely controls response verbosity.

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 a specific resource (AIRMET/SIGMET hazard polygons) and enumerates the hazard categories covered (turbulence, icing, IFR, volcanic ash, convective), which is concrete and distinguishable from data-only siblings like quakes_near or volcanoes. It omits an action verb (retrieve? list? render?), so the agent must infer that this is a fetch operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of how it relates to siblings such as gps_jamming, space_weather, or tropical_cyclones. The phrase 'constraining the aircraft layer' hints at a use case (overlaying hazards on aircraft traffic) but never states the condition under which an agent should call this tool.

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