aircraft_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is 'approximate POH-style performance data' and directs users to warnings for extrapolation caveats. However, it does not explain the impact of variable obstacle height despite mentioning a fixed 50ft obstacle, and it lacks details on output format or edge cases.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and aircraft; the second adds regulatory context and a caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context (purpose, aircraft, approximation) but omits units, return structure, and parameter-specific guidance. It is adequate for orientation but not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without schema inspection.

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 must compensate, but it only hints at 'operation' and 'obstacleHeightFt' implicitly. It does not explain pressureAltitudeFt, temperatureC, weightLbs, headwindKt, or runwaySurface, leaving 5 of 7 parameters without added meaning beyond their names and constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Compute' and names the exact resource: takeoff or landing ground roll and total distance over a 50ft obstacle for a Cessna 172R/S. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metar_taf or estimate_fuel, which address weather or fuel, not aircraft 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?

The description clearly identifies the context: satisfying 14 CFR 91.103(b) preflight distance requirements. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the regulatory reference makes it clear when this tool is appropriate, and sibling names imply other tools for other needs.

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