Aviation SIGMET / AIRMET Hazard Alerts

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about active reports and hazard types but does not disclose further behavioral details beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads acronym explanations and hazard list, and states the usage context. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor improvement could mention the scope (all active alerts without filtering), but it is generally 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?

The input schema has only one optional unused parameter with a clear description. With 0 meaningful parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 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 it returns active SIGMET and AIRMET reports, listing specific hazards (thunderstorms, turbulence, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling aviation tools by focusing on hazard alerts for flight safety decisions.

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 mentions the tool is for flight safety hazards and go/no-go decisions, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools like aviation.metar.current or avwx.notams.list.

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