estimate_fuel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that this is a 'basic burn-rate x time model (no climb/descent profile),' which is a key limitation. It also states the prerequisite about distance derivation, making the tool's expected inputs and assumptions clear. It doesn't cover all edge cases or output format, but for a calculation tool, the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences long, with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose and regulatory significance; the second sentence discloses the model's simplicity and data prerequisites. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it computes, the simple model type, and how to obtain distance data. It is incomplete regarding detailed parameter relationships (e.g., how flightRules affects reserve) and return value structure, but the provided context is sufficient for a basic understanding and successful invocation.

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. It provides some parameter context by mentioning 'burn-rate x time' (linking fuelBurnGph and cruiseSpeedKt) and 'Part 91 reserve fuel' (linking flightRules/reserveMinutesOverride). However, it does not explain individual parameters like taxiFuelGal, usableFuelGal, or reserveMinutesOverride, leaving the agent to infer their roles. It adds value but not full compensation.

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's function: 'Compute trip fuel, Part 91 reserve fuel, and a go/no-go fuel margin for a route.' It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and names the exact resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on airport info, weather, or performance. The regulatory reference adds purpose context without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: 'Distance per leg must be supplied directly, or derived by the caller from get_airport_info coordinates first.' It also implies the model type (basic burn-rate x time) and notes limitations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like aircraft_performance, though the description is specific enough to infer.

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