Pre-flight briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: unreadable live sources are reported as outages rather than assumed clear, and drone rules are only included when a drone is named. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the status output and the list of inputs, and the second adds the outage policy and key invocation guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter aggregate tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input selection, default behavior, and the shape of the result (GO/CAUTION/NO-GO with reasons). It does not spell out the full output structure, but the format parameter in the schema covers the text/json/brief variants, so the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: it explains the place-or-lat/lon choice, the default 3-hour window, and the condition for frz_permission. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions and helps an agent select the right combination of parameters.

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 states a specific deliverable: a one-shot pre-flight briefing with a GO, CAUTION or NO-GO status and reasons. It enumerates the data sources (airspace, NOTAMs, weather, geomagnetic, rights of way, parking, drone rules), which clearly distinguishes it from the single-purpose sibling tools like check_weather or check_notams.

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 gives clear invocation context: provide a UK place or lat/lon, set the date and hours for the flying window, and optionally set frz_permission when an aerodrome has agreed. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of individual check tools', but the aggregate nature of the briefing makes that implicit, and no misleading exclusions are present.

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