get_live_flights_positions_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool returns real-time aircraft information and imposes a mandatory filter requirement, which is valuable. However, it does not mention rate limits, response formatting, pagination, error behavior when no filter is given, or authentication requirements. The core behavior is transparent, but significant operational details are absent, leaving it at a 3.

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: the first is front-loaded with the tool's primary output and data fields, the second delivers a high-visibility usage requirement. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and each sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a solid job: it lists the returned fields (latitude, longitude, speed, altitude, etc.) and the mandatory search-parameter rule. However, it omits any explanation of how this differs from the 'light' variant or what defaults apply when limit is omitted, though those limits are in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent but not exhaustive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, each parameter is already documented individually. The description adds value by categorizing a subset of parameters as 'search parameters' and excluding 'limit' from that group, while also stating the non-empty requirement—a constraint not evident from the schema's optional flags. This goes beyond simply repeating param descriptions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'real-time aircraft flight movement information' with a concrete list of data fields (latitude, longitude, speed, altitude, origin, destination, callsign, registration, aircraft type). This is a clear statement of what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_live_flights_positions_light or get_live_flights_count. The 'full' suffix and field enumeration imply a richer variant, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 critical usage constraint: 'At least one search parameter (other than limit) must be provided and non-empty,' followed by a list of valid filter parameters. This is explicit guidance on when the tool can be invoked. However, it offers no direction on when to use this tool versus the 'light' or 'count' alternatives, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., for historic data or simple counts).

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