aircraft.profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns aircraft record plus per-name sanctions screen with confidence and flagged, and notes that name-based screening is probabilistic. However, it does not mention rate limits, permissions, or edge cases.

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 plus a contextual line, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the parameter count and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (aircraft record + sanctions screen with confidence/flagged) and the probabilistic nature. It is fairly complete but could elaborate on response format or confidence interpretation.

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 67% with descriptions for 'tail' and 'icao24' but not 'threshold'. The description repeats scheme info (identify by tail or icao24) but adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema. No additional explanation for threshold or any param.

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 identifies a US-registered aircraft by tail or icao24 and screens owner/operator against OFAC sanctions. It distinguishes from sibling 'aircraft.lookup' by adding sanctions screening, and specifies use cases like OSINT and asset-tracing.

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 when to use this tool (when both aircraft info and OFAC screening are needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. The mention of 'in one call' contrasts with separate calls, but no sibling names are given for exclusion.

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