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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source (adsb.lol), real-time nature, returned fields, and that no account is needed. It also includes a risk indicator (low). It does not mention rate limits or coverage details, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and data source, then gives actionable guidance and return field summary. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (callsign, altitude, speed, position). All three parameters are documented with examples and ranges. It does not mention result limits or error conditions, but for a straightforward filtering tool this is largely 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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds extra value by providing example coordinates (e.g., 40.64 for JFK), the valid radius range (1-250 nautical miles), and a hint to use geo.geocode for coordinates. This goes beyond the basic schema documentation.

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 currently airborne aircraft within a radius, specifies the data source (adsb.lol), and lists exact return fields (callsign, altitude, speed, position). It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools by focusing on real-time airborne aircraft in a geographic area.

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 the tool (list airborne aircraft within a radius) and provides a prerequisite (use geo.geocode for coordinates). It mentions no account is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives like opensky__flights_live.

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