Live aircraft states (OpenSky)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by specifying the exact data fields (position, altitude, velocity, callsign) and the live nature. No contradictions with annotations; the description correctly indicates read-only, state-changing data.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds optional and usage context. Every sentence is necessary and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 optional params, no output schema, live data), the description covers purpose, optional filtering, and use case. It does not explain return format or pagination, but those are common for live APIs. Sibling tools are available for other queries, so the description is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds context by mentioning the 'lat/lon box' term, which maps to the four bounding parameters, but does not add any new details for icao24. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the burden.

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 states what the tool does: returns live state vectors (position, altitude, velocity, callsign) for aircraft, with an optional lat/lon bounding box. It distinguishes from sibling tools like flights_by_aircraft (historical) and flights_by_airport (airport-specific) by emphasizing 'live' and 'state vectors', and provides a specific use case (tracking corporate-jet and supply-chain air activity).

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 description mentions the bounding box option and a use case, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like flights_by_aircraft or flights_track. The usage context is implied but not directly compared, leaving room for confusion about the best tool for different scenarios.

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