aircraft_search

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals 'currently airborne' and 'partial match' but omits return format, pagination, or limitations. Additional context would improve transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient but could be slightly richer without losing conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and parameter info. However, missing output description and context on data freshness limits completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter's description (case-insensitive, partial match) already in schema, adding no new meaning.

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 searches for currently airborne aircraft by callsign with partial match support. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aircraft_flights, aircraft_live, and aircraft_track by specifying 'currently airborne' and 'callsign search'.

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 usage for real-time airborne queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aircraft_flights or aircraft_track. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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