Ver la ficha AIP de un aeródromo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope signal that this is the 'full published' sheet rather than a summary, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether the data can go stale relative to NOTAMs. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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 dense sentence with the resource named first and the returned data fields listed after, no filler and no repetition. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly and sets expectations about the payload breadth. It could be marginally stronger by noting that the ICAO code must be resolved first (e.g. via list_aip_aerodromos), but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both parameters (designador with ICAO examples, format with a text/json enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'ICAO code' and does not mention the format selector at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Full published AIP AD 2 data sheet for one aerodrome (ICAO code)', then enumerates the payload (coordinates, runways, hours, services, frequencies, procedures). The word 'one' clearly separates it from the sibling list_aip_aerodromos, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the singular scope tells the agent this is for a single aerodrome once the ICAO code is known. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of list_aip_aerodromos as the discovery step, and no note on how it relates to get_notam/get_metar for the same aerodrome.

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