weight_and_balance

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

The description discloses that errors are returned as formatted strings and no exceptions are raised. It also explains the return type (formatted string). Given no annotations, this provides adequate transparency for a calculation tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and well-structured with parameter list and return info. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful, earning a high score.

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?

All required parameters are explained, optional parameters are documented with defaults, and return value is described. Given the tool's complexity (10 params), the description is complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed documentation for each parameter, including units and optional keys for payload_items. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 calculates aircraft center of gravity and verifies limits. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'aircraft center of gravity' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like takeoff_performance or landing_performance.

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. While the purpose is clear, there is no indication of scenarios where weight_and_balance is preferred over other tools like takeoff_performance.

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