get_notams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires environment variables and returns a clear 'not configured' error if they are unset, rather than silently omitting NOTAMs. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but for a simple fetch operation these are not critical.

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, front-loading the main purpose and following with authentication details and failure mode. Each part contributes valuable information, though the inclusion of the registration URL and regulation citation adds slight density. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, required credentials, error behavior, and regulatory rationale. It does not detail the success response structure, but that is somewhat implicit. The description covers essential operational details, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% and the description adds little beyond the parameter name. It only says 'for an airport' without explaining that airportId should be a 4-letter code (e.g., ICAO identifier), providing examples, or clarifying the pattern. This leaves a gap for the agent in constructing valid input values.

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 a specific action ('Fetch current NOTAMs for an airport'), identifies the resource (NOTAMs), and names the source API (FAA NOTAM Search API). It also adds regulatory context (14 CFR 91.103), which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_metar_taf or get_airport_info.

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 by referencing the regulatory requirement, implying use during pre-flight information gathering. It also specifies prerequisites (FAA credentials) and failure behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not fully meet the 'when not to use' criterion.

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