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

Annotations already indicate safe behavior (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds value by listing the exact data returned (altitude, ground speed, heading, vertical rate), but does not cover potential limitations like maximum returned aircraft or data latency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence defines the tool and its output, the second gives concrete use cases. Every word is purposeful and 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the returned fields (ADS-B positions). However, it misses details like response format (JSON?), pagination, or practical limits. Still, for a simple query tool, it covers core expectations.

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 detailed descriptions (e.g., 'radius_nm: Search radius in nautical miles (default 25, max 250)'). The description only adds the concept of 'within a radius' without additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline but does not surpass it.

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's purpose: live tracking of aircraft near a location. It specifies the verb 'track' and the resource 'aircraft near a point.' The use cases 'what is flying above me' and 'planes near <place>' make it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like find_by_callsign.

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 ('for what is flying above me / planes near <place>'), providing clear use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like find_by_callsign or military_aircraft, which would strengthen guidance.

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