Consultar NOTAM activos de un aeródromo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety/world profile. The description usefully adds that results are filtered to active NOTAMs and combines raw ICAO text with DGAC-decoded fields, but discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or freshness caveats.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and the key parameter constraint. Efficient, though bundling scope, parameter and payload into one clause leaves no room for usage guidance.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description conveys purpose, scope and payload adequately. The missing piece is when to prefer it over the sibling weather/AIP tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and format) are already fully documented with examples and an enum. The description only reiterates the ICAO code concept ('e.g. SEQM') and says nothing about the format option, so the 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 verb and resource ('Active NOTAMs') plus the domain scope ('Ecuadorian aerodrome') and even summarizes the payload ('raw ICAO text plus DGAC's decoded fields'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings get_metar and get_sigmet, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. The aviation context implies the use case (check NOTAMs for an aerodrome), but the agent gets no routing help versus get_metar/get_sigmet or the AIP siblings.

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