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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond these with useful caveats: data is near real-time, coverage and identification are incomplete, and some helicopters operate at night. These are behavioral limitations an agent must calibrate around, adding value beyond the annotations. It stops short of fully detailing update cadence or rate limits, but for an open-data, read-only service this is reasonable.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main capability begins the first sentence, the aircraft examples are disambiguating, and the caveats are appended in a short final clause. There is no filler or nesting; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only data stream, this is largely complete: the data domain, the geographic extent, the filter, and data-quality caveats are all present. The absence of an output schema is partly covered by the phrase 'ADS-B positions', which implies lat/lon and call sign/ID fields, but the behavior of `limit` in determining returned records is left unstated.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is responsible for parameter semantics. It does document `country` as an optional ISO-2 filter on the country of registration, which is meaningful. However, it never explains what `limit` controls or why it caps at 300, so an agent still cannot fully predict how paging or result trimming works.

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 a specific verb+resource: returns near real-time ADS-B positions of firefighting aircraft worldwide, with explicit examples of aircraft types. It differentiates itself from the fire-oriented siblings (active_fires, fire_archive_search, etc.) by focusing on aircraft tracking instead of scene or event data.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use information exists. The description only mentions the optional ISO-2 country filter, which is a parameter instruction, not tool-selection guidance. It does not name alternative tools or conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate.

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