get_notams

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

The description states the tool returns NOTAM numbers and full text, filtered by proximity. As no annotations are provided, there is no contradiction. It does not disclose limitations, permissions, or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise sentences, each adding value. The first states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has three parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells what the tool does and when to use an alternative. One might wish for mention of what format the full text is in, but that is minor.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, meaning parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds no extra parameter context, relying on schema for details. 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches active NOTAMs near a location, specifies the output (numbers and full text), and mentions filtering by proximity. It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_airspace by noting the latter is for a full multi-layer assessment.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for proximity-based NOTAM retrieval) and advises using check_airspace for a broader airspace assessment. However, it does not specify when not to use it or other alternatives.

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