adsb_by_registration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Live' usefully signals real-time/freshness semantics, but nothing is said about coverage gaps, whether a valid-format registration can return empty, rate limits, or whether results are a snapshot or stream — all material for an ADS-B lookup.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the resource and the lookup key with a concrete example; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter lookup tool the description covers what the agent must know to invoke it; only edge-case behavior (not found, coverage scope, non-US tail formats) is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter 'reg' has no description in the schema, but the description supplies the critical semantics: it is a tail/registration number and is formatted like 'N12345'. That example is the main thing an agent needs to form a valid call, though it doesn't cover non-US registration formats.

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?

States a concrete resource (live aircraft) and the exact lookup key (tail/registration number) with an example, so intent is immediately clear. It implicitly differentiates from adsb_by_hex/adsb_by_callsign/adsb_by_type by naming the identifier, but never explicitly contrasts with lookup_aircraft or aircraft_dossier, which an agent might plausibly confuse it with.

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 word 'Live' hints that this returns current position data rather than a static record, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over adsb_by_hex, adsb_by_callsign, lookup_aircraft, or aircraft_dossier. No preconditions, no exclusions, no note on what to do when a registration is unknown.

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