adsb_by_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are live/current and gives type-code examples, but does not disclose data source, freshness/update cadence, rate limits, geographic coverage, result limits, or pagination behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but key operational traits remain absent.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the filter dimension and provides examples, making the essential information easy to scan.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain response structure. However, for a live aircraft query, the agent still lacks operational context such as data source, freshness, geographic scope, and result limits, and there is no routing guidance to sibling tools.

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 for the single parameter by explaining that type_code is an ICAO type designator and providing examples like 'B738' and 'A320'. It does not clarify case sensitivity, exact-match behavior, or whether multiple codes are allowed, so it is not fully complete.

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 identifies the resource (live aircraft) and the filtering dimension (ICAO type designator), with concrete examples. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like adsb_by_hex, adsb_by_registration, and adsb_by_callsign by naming the type filter, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_aircraft, lookup_aircraft, fr24_search, or aircraft_density. The intended use is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Live aircraft by ICAO type designator,' with no exclusions or context about coverage.

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