adsb_by_hex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are 'live' aircraft, without stating freshness, coverage, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The identifier type and example are delivered immediately.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the key input and 'live' nature. However, it does not help an agent choose between this and the numerous sibling aircraft lookup tools, leaving a meaningful contextual gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by naming the parameter meaning (ICAO24 hex code) and giving a concrete example ('a1b2c3'). Minor gaps remain around case sensitivity or formatting edge cases.

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 names a specific resource and lookup key: live aircraft by ICAO24 hex code, with an example. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adsb_by_registration and adsb_by_callsign by key type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to the many sibling aircraft lookup tools. The identifier type implies usage, but the agent must infer all routing decisions.

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