Fetch one occurrence by its FlightFinder id, with source-attribution links and references to the narratives available for it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | FlightFinder occurrence id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavioral value by disclosing that the response includes source-attribution links and narrative references. This helps the agent know what kind of data to expect beyond a simple occurrence object. No contradiction with 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 a single, well-constructed sentence that leads with the core action and object, then appends the valuable response details. Every phrase 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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema, rich annotations, and an available output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the essential purpose and the notable extra content (source links, narrative references) without over-explaining. Missing explicit fallback guidance is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 single required parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema as 'FlightFinder occurrence id', and the description repeats only that same notion. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much, but it also adds no extra format, validation, or usage details 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 ('Fetch'), a resource ('one occurrence'), and the key identifier (FlightFinder id), while also noting it returns source-attribution links and narrative references. This clearly distinguishes it from search_accidents (which searches multiple occurrences) and get_narrative (which likely fetches a narrative directly).
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 implies usage when the agent already has a specific FlightFinder id, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_accidents or get_narrative. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the routing decision to inference.
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.