get_aircraft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists output fields and example slugs, with no disclosure about read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is minimal for a simple retrieval tool, but still missing guidance on what happens with invalid slugs.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes examples efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the purpose, input examples, and output fields adequately. It does not address error handling for invalid slugs, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (slug). The description adds valuable context with concrete example slugs and lists the output fields, which goes beyond the schema's minimal description. This helps the agent select appropriate slug values.

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 retrieves aircraft specifications by slug and lists the returned fields (engines, seats, etc.), with specific examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_airport or get_metar.

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 implicitly indicates usage for aircraft spec lookups by slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling context helps but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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