Find take-off spots

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: excluded zone types, positive and negative scoring factors, output contents (best few with reasons and coordinates), map numbering, and the legal caveat about rights of way. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes: criteria, scoring behavior, output and display, and legal context. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, scoring logic, and return shape well enough to call it correctly. It leaves some details implicit, such as how a2_certificate influences scoring, but schema and annotations cover parameter and safety aspects.

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 description coverage is high (~88%), so the schema already documents most parameters accurately. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'near a UK place' framing; notably, the undocumented max_results parameter is not explained in the description either.

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?

States a specific verb ('Suggest'), resource ('take-off spots near a UK place'), and concrete criteria (public rights of way, parking, open access land). The focus on scored suggestions with exclusions clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_takeoff_site and find_parking.

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 usage context is clearly implied: call this when the user wants suggested take-off spots near a UK location rather than a check on a specific site. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the choice between this and check_takeoff_site or preflight_briefing.

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