get_historic_flight_events_light

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 useful info about sorting by event_timestamp and grouping by flight_id, and emphasizes non-empty required fields. However, it omits details such as response structure, pagination, rate limits, or what 'light' means in terms of returned fields.

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, both information-dense. The first sentence lists event types and specifies sorting/grouping; the second provides a clear constraint. There is no fluff or repetition, and key details are front-loaded.

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 largely sufficient for a simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage. It explains the event types, result ordering, and required inputs. However, it lacks a comparison with the 'full' sibling, which would help an agent understand if this lighter variant is appropriate. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose.

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%: both flight_ids and event_types have descriptive text in the schema. The description only repeats the requirement that they must be provided and non-empty, which is already captured by 'required' and 'minLength'. It adds no new semantic meaning 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 action ('Returns') and the resource ('historical flight events'), and specifies the event types and ordering/grouping behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this 'light' version from the sibling 'get_historic_flight_events_full', so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 implies a use case for retrieving historical events, but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as the 'full' variant or flight positions tools. The 'REQUIRED' note relates to parameter constraints, not usage context.

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