emergencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the three emergency squawk codes and, importantly, states that a zero result is normal and desirable rather than a failure. This prevents misinterpretation of an empty response, though it does not discuss data freshness or response format.

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 compact and front-loaded: subject and scope first, then code meanings, then a behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with 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 zero-parameter worldwide status tool, the description is largely complete: it names the data set, the relevant codes, and the expected normal state. A minor gap is that it never explicitly says the tool returns a list of aircraft, though the noun-phrase opening implies it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to document. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of inputs.

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 identifies a specific resource—aircraft squawking emergency codes—and a worldwide scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like military_aircraft or interesting_nearby. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'shows', but the intent is clear enough.

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 is implied: use this tool to see aircraft currently squawking emergency codes worldwide. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the code breakdown and normal-zero caveat give some contextual framing.

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