list_circulars_by_subject

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions grouping and filtering but does not explain output structure, pagination, sorting, or side effects. As a read operation, the lack of explicit readOnlyHint is acceptable, but more detail on behavior is needed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 simple listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., how groups are represented) which could affect selection.

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?

Both parameters are well-defined in the schema with enums and descriptions. The description adds context ('grouped by subject', 'filtered to your airport type') but does not significantly expand beyond schema coverage (100%). 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 lists FAA Advisory Circulars grouped by subject with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like search_circulars (likely keyword search) and get_circular_details (single circular).

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?

Usage is implied: use when you want circulars grouped by subject area, optionally filtered by airport type. No explicit when-not or alternatives provided, though sibling names hint at alternatives.

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