aircraft_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns flight path waypoints, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data range, or whether it is read-only. Critical behavioral traits like output limits or required permissions are omitted.

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 wasted words. It immediately states the action, input, and output. While very brief, it is not under-specified for purpose; every element earns its place in the sentence.

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?

The description does not specify the structure of waypoints (e.g., lat/lon/timestamp), time range, or whether it supports historical or real-time data. No output schema exists to compensate. Given the tool's tracking nature and sibling context, more detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% (the single parameter 'icao24' has a description). The tool's description merely repeats the parameter's purpose ('by ICAO24 hex address') without adding new meaning or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter adequately.

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 ('Track a specific aircraft'), the resource ('by ICAO24 hex address'), and the output ('returns flight path waypoints'). It distinguishes effectively from siblings like aircraft_live or aircraft_waypoints by specifying 'track' and 'waypoints'. This is a specific verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aircraft_waypoints or aircraft_live. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or context for selecting this tool over siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without decision support.

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