get_historic_flights_count

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the required parameter combination rule, which is not inferable from the schema alone. However, it does not mention output format, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.

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-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by an important warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has 17 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only the count purpose and the mandatory-filter constraint. It does not explain the return structure, the meaning of 'flight positions' as opposed to flights, or the optional combination of filters. Given the tool's complexity, the description is incomplete but the schema covers parameter details.

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 describes all 17 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description's contribution is limited. It adds value by clarifying that 'limit' does not count as the required additional search parameter, which is an important interaction rule. This elevates the semantics 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 identifies the tool as returning a count of historical flight positions, using a specific verb and resource. The term 'historical' differentiates it from live count tools, and 'count' vs 'positions' distinguishes it from sibling position tools. Though 'flight positions' might be ambiguous, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a crucial usage constraint: timestamp is required and at least one additional search parameter must be non-empty. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over position-returning siblings. The guidance is operational rather than comparative.

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