Consultar reportes METAR de un aeródromo

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety, so the description only needs to add context. It adds freshness ('Latest'), return format ('raw ICAO text with UTC times'), and data source ('from DGAC/AIS'), which helps an agent understand the output without duplicating structured fields. It omits rate limits, caching, and update frequency, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and scope followed by return details and source. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, with full schema coverage, a defined output schema, and annotations that cover safety. The description supplies purpose, scope, source, and return format, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without further guidance.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including examples for designador and the format enum. The description repeats the ICAO-code example but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (METAR/SPECI weather reports) for a clear scope (Ecuadorian aerodrome, ICAO code), and by naming METAR/SPECI it implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling NOTAM/SIGMET tools. An agent can tell what it retrieves 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?

Provides clear context for what the tool returns, so usage is implied for weather-report lookups, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as get_notam, get_sigmet, or get_aip_aerodromo. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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