Get flight hour statistics. IMPORTANT: You MUST get the current date/year from the 'get_dispatch_context_and_time' tool FIRST to know what "current year" is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year to analyze (default current year) | |
| aircraftId | No | Aircraft ID, Registration, or Callsign (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical external dependency on get_dispatch_context_and_time, which is useful, but it does not describe the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or what specific statistics are included.
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 filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the IMPORTANT prerequisite is clearly highlighted without unnecessary detail.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'flight hour statistics' without defining the granularity, fields, or aggregation. The prerequisite is helpful, but the missing return-shape information leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's actual result.
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 schema already documents both parameters, but the description adds meaningful context about the 'year' parameter: the current year is not assumed from the system clock and must be obtained via the context tool. This goes beyond the schema's 'default current year' note.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get flight hour statistics.' However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_aircraft_hours,' leaving some ambiguity about whether these are the same or different capabilities.
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 gives one explicit and important usage prerequisite: call get_dispatch_context_and_time first to know the current year. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_aircraft_hours or specify any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
