Consultar METAR, NOTAM o SIGMET de Ecuador

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, open-world operation, so the burden is lower; the description still adds meaningful traits such as 'Live' (fresh data), the FIR-wide scope of sigmet, and that output is raw ICAO text. It does not mention rate limits or caching, but the added context is solid.

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 semicolon-delimited clauses that front-loads the source and the three modes. Efficient and well organized, though the density slightly taxes readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still notes the text output is raw ICAO. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and clear safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the terse schema (enum values described only as 'metar, notam or sigmet.') by expanding each: weather reports, active notices, and FIR-wide SIGMETs, plus the ICAO-code examples consistent with the designador field.

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 verb and resource (live aeronautical notices from DGAC/AIS) and enumerates the three variants it can return (metar/notam/sigmet). An agent can distinguish it from aeronautical siblings like list_aip_aerodromos and get_aip_aerodromo without opening any 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?

Clear per-variant guidance: metar/notam require an aerodrome ICAO code while sigmet covers the whole FIR with no code. It routes correctly among its own modes, but names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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