get_flight_summary_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating data availability from 2024-04-07, that both real-time and extensive historical data are accessible, and a non-obvious requirement for an additional search parameter. While it does not detail output formats or rate limits, the disclosed traits go beyond mere restatement.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence is informative: the main functionality, data availability range, and a critical usage constraint. There is no wasted content, and the structure naturally guides the agent toward proper invocation.

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 has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete high-level picture: it defines the data scope, the types of information returned, the availability window, and a mandatory filtering condition. The parameter schema covers individual details, so the description adequately supplements it for selection and initial invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all 12 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly requiring at least one additional search parameter beyond sort and limit, which is not present in the schema's required list. This clarifies a non-obvious constraint for effective invocation.

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 returns comprehensive timings and locations of aircraft takeoffs and landings with detailed flight, aircraft, and operator information. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly through the word 'full' and 'comprehensive', but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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 notes that both real-time and historical data are available, and includes an IMPORTANT constraint about required parameters and additional search filters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_flight_summary_light or get_flight_summary_count, nor does it state exclusions for alternative use cases.

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