list_aircraft

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing: it does not clarify whether results are paginated, whether the list is unfiltered/complete, or what "ids" refers to. The one hint — that ids are surfaced — is left ambiguous rather than explained.

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?

One short phrase, front-loaded with the verb and resource — no wasted wording. The only cost is that the brevity produces ambiguity in "with ids" rather than crispness.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering its safety profile, this is close to minimally sufficient. Still missing is any sense of what a result entry contains or whether the listing is complete, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; per the baseline rule this scores 4. The stray "with ids" phrasing arguably muddies rather than clarifies the (empty) parameter situation.

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?

"List aircraft with ids" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (aircraft), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the phrase "with ids" is ambiguous — it could mean an id parameter, id-based filtering, or that ids are included in the response — and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like list_persons or list_manifests beyond the resource name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as update_aircraft or the manifest tools, and no stated preconditions. The only implied usage is 'list aircraft', which an agent could already infer from the name alone.

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