get_active_tfrs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only active TFRs are returned and that results include nearby TFRs within radius. However, it does not mention if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or any destructive behavior. Since the operation is clearly a read/list, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose, then details, then sibling recommendation.

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 relative simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns, the search logic, and a sibling alternative. A small improvement would be to mention if the result includes TFRs that are no longer active, but current phrasing implies active only.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (lat/lng with bounds, radius_nm with min/max/default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists active TFRs near a location, specifies it returns TFRs containing the point and nearby ones within radius, and details fields like start/end times and descriptive text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_airspace.

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 indicates when to use this tool vs check_airspace by suggesting check_airspace for a full multi-layer assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide other alternatives.

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