aircraft_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a dossier-style aggregation with derived outputs, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, data freshness, time window, permissions, or rate limits.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then enumerates the dossier contents. There is no filler or repetition, and every listed item contributes useful scope information.

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 exists and can cover return values, and the description explains the required ident format plus the dossier contents. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema descriptions, the optional detail parameter is left unexplained and no operational context such as time range or freshness is provided.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It usefully clarifies that ident accepts ICAO24 hex or callsign, but it does not mention the optional detail parameter or its default value, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 a specific resource and action: a pattern-of-life dossier for one aircraft, accepting ICAO24 hex or callsign. It distinguishes itself from simpler aircraft lookup siblings through unique contents such as gaps, GNSS-integrity, and live incident membership, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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?

Usage is implied by the dossier framing and listed outputs, suggesting it is for deeper pattern-of-life analysis rather than raw lookup. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives for simple aircraft queries or track history.

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