env_noise_aircraft_registers

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: queries eight sublayers without period, validity dates vary widely (2009-2024), data is a snapshot not real-time. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description enriches understanding without contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (overview, use case, important notes, args, returns). Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or vague sentences.

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 (multiple sublayers, filtering options, data staleness) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, return format, and usage context. All necessary information is present.

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?

Description explicitly lists both parameters (period and response_format) and adds meaning beyond schema: period optional with eight sublayers explained, without period triggers eight requests. Even though schema coverage is low, the description compensates fully, providing clear semantics for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides an overview of published aircraft noise pollution registers with validity dates, number of curves, dB range, and links. The use case and 'Provenienz-Tool' label further clarify its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like env_noise_aircraft_at by focusing on register metadata rather than real-time noise data.

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 provides a clear use case ('before a site assessment, check if a register exists and how current it is') and important notes (e.g., without period multiple requests, data is not real-time). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use it, missing some exclusion criteria.

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