get_flight_data

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool only returns a result while the flight is in the air, which is critical for an agent to understand. The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate safety and non-exhaustiveness, and the description adds the real-time constraint. It doesn't mention rate limits or credit costs, but the detail_level parameter description covers credit costs partially.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the key constraint and alternative tool. No wasted words.

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 description is complete for a read-only lookup tool with a rich schema and output schema. It covers the main usage caveat (airborne only) and routes to the right sibling. It could mention that the tool may return no result if the flight is not found, but the 'only returns a result while in the air' statement implies this. Minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the flight_number/callsign alternatives and the real-time nature, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: retrieving real-time position data for a currently airborne flight by flight number or callsign. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_flight_summary for non-airborne flights, which helps an agent differentiate it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for currently airborne flights) and when not to use it (for completed, scheduled, or historical flights), directing the agent to get_flight_summary instead. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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