nearby_aircraft

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two important behavioral limits: at most 50 results and a 250 nautical mile maximum radius. However, it does not mention what data is returned, default radius behavior, ordering, or error conditions, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but it is borderline under-specified for a tool with no parameter descriptions, so it does not earn a perfect conciseness score.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, the meaning of the response, and guidance on distinguishing this from sibling tools, so an agent would need to infer too much.

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 0%, so the description needs to explain the parameters. It implies lat/lon are the search center and radius is the distance, but it never explicitly maps these to the schema fields or explains that radius_nm is optional with a default of 50. The 250 nm mention only restates a schema bound and does not clarify parameter usage.

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 operation: get aircraft, with explicit geographic scope (within nautical miles) and output cap (50). This identifies the resource and the distinguishing behavior, separating it from the sibling tools get_aircraft and network_stats through the 'nearby' qualifier.

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 tool's use is implied: it is for finding aircraft near a coordinate within a radius. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_aircraft or network_stats, nor any mention of exclusions like 'for a specific aircraft use get_aircraft.'

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