get_historic_flights_positions_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the mandatory timestamp + additional parameter requirement, and subscription-dependent historical data range. However, it does not explain output structure, pagination, limit behavior, or potential error cases, leaving gaps for a 17-parameter tool.

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: two sentences that front-load the core function, then add historical context and a critical usage constraint. Every sentence delivers useful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key return fields (lat/lon/speed/altitude plus flight details), data availability, and mandatory query constraints. It is reasonably complete for a read-only retrieval tool, though it could better clarify the distinction from the 'light' variant and output formatting.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that timestamp is required and that at least one additional search parameter must be non-empty, and clarifies that 'limit' alone doesn't count. This goes beyond the schema, which only lists 'timestamp' as required without the extra constraint.

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 historical aircraft flight movement information including latitude, longitude, speed, altitude, and key flight/aircraft details. This specifies the action and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like the 'light' version, only implying more detail through the 'full' name and mention of additional fields.

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 explicit usage constraints: timestamp is required and at least one additional search parameter (other than limit) must be provided and non-empty. It also notes data availability from May 11, 2016 depending on subscription. However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_historic_flights_positions_light), lacking exclusions or comparative guidance.

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