Find aircraft

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: case-insensitive matching and the fact that matches are returned even when they have no position yet, which matters for result interpretation.

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-loads the core operation in the first sentence, then documents each argument compactly. The Args block is conventional and each line earns its place; no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete: matching rules, scope limitation ('currently in range'), and a result caveat are all present. Only inter-sibling disambiguation is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: query is defined as a case-insensitive partial match across three identifier fields with concrete examples ("LAN", "e80", "CC-B"), and max_results is described as a cap defaulting to 10. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 (Find) and resource (aircraft), plus the matching semantics: partial match across callsign, ICAO hex, or registration, case-insensitive. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings aircraft_overhead and aircraft_near, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 phrase 'currently in range' implies a live-coverage context, but the description never states when to use this over aircraft_overhead or aircraft_near, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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