check_airspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully explains what the tool does (queries multiple data layers, returns a synthesized assessment). It discloses that it requires an API key. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only or has any side effects, which is acceptable given its query-only nature but slightly less 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second details data sources and output, the third provides usage guidance with alternatives. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description is complete for a query tool with no output schema: it explains input, output summary, data sources, and alternatives. However, it does not clarify if the results are real-time or cached, and the output format is only vaguely described. With 3 simple params and no output schema, this is adequate but could add more detail on output.

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 are well-described in the schema with clear descriptions (lat, lng, radius_nm). The description reinforces the radius parameter's purpose but adds no new details beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's mention of 'nearby features' provides context, raising it to 4.

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 explicitly states the tool checks airspace restrictions at a given location, specifying the 11 FAA data layers queried and the synthesized output (flyability assessment, airspace class, max altitude, nearby hazards). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like validate_flight and preflight_briefing by naming them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: use check_airspace for a general airspace restriction check, validate_flight for Part 107 compliance, and preflight_briefing for a full GO/NO-GO assessment. It also notes the requirement of a valid DRONELYTICS_API_KEY.

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