check_airspace

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the operation (checking airspace), data sources (11 FAA layers), and output (flyability assessment, airspace class, max altitude, hazards). Also discloses API key requirement. However, it could explicitly state it's read-only, but implicitly understood.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded with purpose, detail, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Four sentences cover all essential aspects.

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 complexity of the tool (11 data layers, synthesized assessment), the description covers all necessary information: purpose, data sources, output summary, and alternative tools. No output schema exists, so description explains return values adequately.

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?

All three parameters (lat, lng, radius_nm) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it checks all airspace restrictions at a given location, queries 11 FAA data layers, and returns a synthesized flyability assessment. Distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_flight and preflight_briefing by naming them explicitly.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (check airspace restrictions) and when to use alternatives (validate_flight for Part 107 compliance, preflight_briefing for full GO/NO-GO). Provides clear context and prerequisites.

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