adsbiq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important context "current public state", indicating a transient, openly accessible snapshot. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the key identifying information (ICAO 24-bit hex address) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it states the target identifier and the type of data returned. It could mention what happens when no aircraft exists for the given hex or what fields the returned state contains, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep this gap minor.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that the hex parameter is an ICAO 24-bit hex address. This gives the parameter meaning beyond its name and regex pattern, although it does not elaborate further on expected formats beyond the pattern.

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 uses a specific verb, "Return", names the resource ("current public state for one ICAO 24-bit hex address"), and clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single aircraft identified by hex. The distinction from nearby_aircraft and network_stats is immediately apparent.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a specific ICAO 24-bit hex address and need the public state for that aircraft. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the contrast with nearby_aircraft and network_stats makes the appropriate usage evident.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result-cap and radius-scoping behavior ('at most 50', 'within at most 250 nm'), which is useful but partially redundant with the schema's maximums. No additional context about pagination, response shape, or error handling is given.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key action and constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 conveys the core function but lacks details about the returned aircraft data, ordering, or units. Since there is no output schema, more context would help, but the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, so basic completeness is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It implicitly references the limit and radius_nm constraints via 'at most 50' and 'within at most 250 nautical miles', but does not explicitly describe lat/lon or explain the parameters. This is insufficient for the four-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('aircraft') with explicit constraints ('at most 50', 'within at most 250 nautical miles'). This clearly differentiates it from generic get_aircraft and network_stats siblings, even without naming them.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose this over get_aircraft or network_stats, but the description's focus on proximity implies it is for nearby-aircraft lookups. This is implied, not stated.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the output is 'bounded' and 'aggregate,' and it applies to the 'current public aircraft snapshot,' so the agent should not expect a full aircraft list. No contradiction exists.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Return,' and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning about the tool's scope and output.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows it will receive bounded aggregate counts for the current snapshot. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about what dimensions the counts cover (e.g., total aircraft, counts by type), preventing a perfect 5.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is trivial, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. This is the baseline-4 case for parameterless tools; no information is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Return', and names a clear resource: 'bounded aggregate counts for the current public aircraft snapshot.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_aircraft and nearby_aircraft by returning statistics rather than aircraft records.

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 is implied by 'bounded aggregate counts'—an agent can infer to use this when aggregate snapshot statistics are needed—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The sibling tools are never named or contrasted in the description.

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