get_historic_flights_positions_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the historical data availability (since 2016, plan-dependent) and the mandatory parameter requirements, but omits details about output format, pagination, or potential rate limiting. This is partial but useful disclosure.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The IMPORTANT note is succinct and essential, earning its place. No redundancy or filler, though it could briefly mention what 'light' means relative to the full variant.

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 complex tool with 17 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and critical invocation requirements. Yet it lacks any mention of response shape, error behavior, or how 'light' limits the returned fields. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters. The description adds the important constraint that limit alone is insufficient and at least one other search parameter must be given, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain individual parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 data including latitude, longitude, speed, and altitude. It differentiates from live-flight siblings by specifying 'historical' and from 'full' tools by the 'light' suffix, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the full version.

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?

It provides an explicit usage constraint (timestamp required, plus at least one non-limit parameter) which is useful for correct invocation. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_historic_flights_positions_full or get_live_flights_positions_light.

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