get_historic_flight_events_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that events are sorted by event_timestamp and grouped by flight_id, and that inputs must be non-empty. However, it omits return format, pagination, permissions, or potential error cases, which are important behavioral details.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core functionality and output characteristics, the second conveys a key constraint. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and well-structured.

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 covers the essential what-it-does and sorting/grouping behavior, but lacks details on return structure, which is notable since no output schema exists. It also does not clarify the difference from the 'light' sibling tool, making the description average in completeness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including the list of event types and the max ID limit. The description additionally emphasizes that both parameters are required and non-empty, but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 selected historical flight events with specific event types, detailed information, sorted and grouped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like position checkers and the 'light' version by emphasizing detail and event categories.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_historic_flight_events_light or position tools. The only guidance is a required-parameter note, which is more of a validation rule than usage context.

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