aircraft_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists outputs but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or if changes are reversible. As a read-only stat tool, it's likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Single sentence with a dash, efficient and front-loaded. Every word adds value: verb, resource, scope, and list of outputs. No unnecessary text.

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 stat tool with 4 numeric params, description sufficiently covers purpose and outputs. Could mention if data is real-time or historical, or any bounding box size limits, but not critical for basic usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-defined. Description adds context by mentioning 'bounding box' but does not go beyond schema in explaining 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?

Description clearly states tool provides traffic statistics for a bounding box, listing specific outputs (total aircraft, altitude/speed distribution, top countries). Distinguishes from sibling tools like aircraft_track or aircraft_live which focus on individual flights or live positions.

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?

Usage context is implied (when you need aggregated statistics for an area), but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools exist for more specific queries, but description doesn't reference them.

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