aircraft.lookup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return fields (make/model/owner/operator, icao24) and data source (OpenSky, CC-BY-SA). Does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what occurs on not found. Adequate for a simple lookup but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, includes examples, return info, and data source. Efficiently packed.

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 sufficiently explains what is returned (make/model/owner/operator, icao24) and provides source context. Lacks details on error responses or pagination, but for a straightforward lookup, it is reasonably complete.

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 already describes both parameters with examples (100% coverage). Description adds value by reinforcing the 'exactly one' constraint and explaining the format of tail numbers (N-number) and icao24 (hex). This extra context goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Look up a US-registered aircraft by tail number or icao24.' Specific about scope and inputs. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'aircraft.profile', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

Explicitly states 'Pass exactly one' and provides examples. Clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like 'aircraft.profile'.

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