Aggregate safety statistics for an aircraft family: total occurrences, hull losses, fatal accidents, total fatalities, and first/latest year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | family slug, e.g. "airbus-a320" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stats | No | aggregates over the merged corpus | |
| types | No | ICAO type designators in the family | |
| family | No | the family this covers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying the output metrics and time range concept, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, coverage caveats, or response size.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific statistics returned. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
With one well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides all essential context for an agent to call this tool correctly. Nothing critical is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter 'family' is already documented with a type and example slug. The description reinforces the 'aircraft family' concept but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 ('Aggregate') and resource ('safety statistics for an aircraft family'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned: occurrences, hull losses, fatal accidents, fatalities, and first/latest year. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accident or search_accidents, which target individual accidents rather than family-level aggregates.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need aggregated family-level safety statistics rather than detailed individual accident records. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or dataset: accidents, narratives, sources, airport references, and the three FAA summary datasets. Even the get/search accident pair is clearly split by retrieve-by-ID versus filtered-search, so an agent should not struggle to pick the right tool.
All names use snake_case and are readable, with noun-style dataset tools like wildlife_strikes and laser_incidents alongside verb-prefixed actions like search_accidents and list_sources. This is a minor deviation from a strict verb_noun convention, but it remains predictable.
Nine tools is appropriate for a safety-data server that spans an accident corpus, narratives, source metadata, airport lookups, and multiple FAA datasets. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.
The surface covers accident search/retrieval, narrative access, source metadata, airport resolution, and three FAA summary datasets. Notable gaps are the lack of occurrence-level retrieval for drone/laser/wildlife events and no explicit slug/autocomplete endpoint for aircraft families, but agents can usually work around these.