get_aircraft_performance

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions external dependency OpenAP, internal error handling, and that errors are returned as strings. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or other behavioral traits.

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?

The description is fairly concise with clear sections for Args, Returns, Raises. It could be slightly more terse, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, return format, and error handling. It does not detail the output fields, but that is handled by the output schema.

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 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: aircraft_type is an ICAO code, distance_km in kilometers, cruise_altitude_ft in feet. It does not mention the default value for cruise_altitude_ft.

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 clearly states the tool gets performance estimates for an aircraft type, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes the requirement for OpenAP, distinguishing it from siblings like get_airfoil_database.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of OpenAP requirement implies a prerequisite but does not help an agent decide between this and other performance tools.

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