Aircraft overhead

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/openWorld=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the config-dependent sort order, distance_km being null without a site location, and the env vars to set. It doesn't cover rate limits or result freshness, but the config-conditional behavior is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the config conditional, then args. Mostly tight, though the quoted colloquialism and parenthetical env var hint are slightly casual for a tool spec.

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 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return ordering, distance/bearing semantics, config dependency, and both params. It doesn't document the shape of each aircraft record (fields besides distance/bearing), but nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents both params with defaults and clarifies semantics (max_results is a cap, include_grounded defaults to airborne-only), though it doesn't document valid ranges for max_results.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: aircraft currently in range, nearest first. The phrase 'what's that plane overhead right now' quote concretely distinguishes it from siblings like aircraft_near and find_aircraft, which suggest different query modes.

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?

Implies usage via the colloquial framing and mentions behavior with/without receiver config, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs aircraft_near or find_aircraft. The routing is inferable from the name and 'right now' framing but not stated.

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