aviation_get_aircraft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and mostly fails: it does not say that results depend on an active tracking session, that lookup_registrations triggers an external network call to hexdb.io, or what happens on lookup failure. Return values are covered by the output schema, which is the only mitigating factor.

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?

A single short phrase, front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted wording or filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 three parameters, an external network lookup option, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the dependency on an active tracking session and the side-effect nature of registration lookups, so an agent could call it without understanding the preconditions.

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 all three parameters (max_age, include_inactive, lookup_registrations) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get list of aircraft) and adds the meaningful qualifier 'currently tracked'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like aviation_track_aircraft or marine_get_vessels, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'currently tracked' only implicitly hints that tracking must already be active, leaving the prerequisite relationship with aviation_track_aircraft for the agent to guess.

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