track_history

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the default time window is the last hour, and unresolvable ids return the route's 422 message verbatim rather than raising. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result size/caps, which are real concerns for a track endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the route, then the id contract, then time semantics and error behavior. Four tight sentences with no filler; the parenthetical ICAO24/MMSI shape explanation is slightly redundant but earns its place as disambiguation.

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 explanation. However, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions across 4 params, the description leaves `detail` undocumented and omits any safety/limit/error-shape detail beyond the 422 pass-through — adequate but not complete for a 4-param, unannotated tool.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains `id` (prefixed kind:id or unambiguous bare ICAO24/MMSI) and that `from_ts`/`to_ts` are unix seconds defaulting to the last hour, but the fourth parameter `detail` (default 'short') is never mentioned at all — a meaningful omission for a track geometry tool.

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 specific verb+resource: historical position track for ONE entity, with the backing route (GET /api/history/track). The 'ONE entity' emphasis implicitly separates it from aggregation tools like aircraft_density and from history_diff, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 context is implied by 'ONE entity' (not a bulk/density query), but the description never says when to prefer this over adsb_by_hex, query_aircraft, history_diff, or the dossier tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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