aircraft_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It lists return data fields but omits potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, update frequency, authentication needs, or handling of invalid bounding boxes. It is clear that this is a read operation, but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists included fields. Every phrase adds value; no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more concise but is already efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, it does not specify output format (e.g., JSON array of objects), pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not fully 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%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings (e.g., 'East longitude'). The description adds no extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., value ranges, ordering, or units). Baseline 3 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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (live aircraft positions), the scope (within a bounding box), and lists specific return fields (position, altitude, speed, heading, origin country). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aircraft_track or aircraft_arrivals by focusing on live positions in a bounding box.

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 implies use for retrieving live aircraft in a geographic area, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like aircraft_search, aircraft_track, or aircraft_flights. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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