query_aircraft

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behaviour: the data source is a 'live snapshot' and results are 'matched_total + a capped list of compact records', which tells the agent about truncation. It omits any statement about read-only nature, rate limits, staleness/refresh cadence, or what 'compact' means versus the default 'short' detail setting.

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?

Two terse blocks: what it returns first, then the filter vocabulary compressed into one fragment per clause. No filler, no restating of the tool name, and the highest-value information (return shape, category enum) is front-loaded.

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 no prose, and the description already summarises them. For a 17-parameter all-optional tool, the main residual gaps are the undocumented `detail` parameter and the absence of guidance on when lat/lon alone triggers the default 200 nm radius.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names the category values (the schema provides no enum at all), maps 'area (centre or bbox)' onto lat/lon/radius and min/max bounds, gives units for the altitude band (metres) and the cap on limit (≤200). It leaves the `detail` parameter and the 200 nm default radius undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Filtered aircraft query against the live snapshot' — and the follow-up enumerates the filter axes. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as lookup_aircraft or aircraft_density, but the 'filtered query over the live snapshot' framing is clear enough to separate it from dossier/lookup tools.

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 filter list: use this when you want to select aircraft by category, area, squawk, callsign, altitude or status flags. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer lookup_aircraft, adsb_by_callsign, or aircraft_density instead, and no mention of prerequisites, so the agent must infer routing.

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