find_by_type

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the main behavior: the result set is every airborne aircraft of the given type, worldwide by default and optionally nearby. It does not explain how near_me interacts with lat, lon, and within_km, nor does it mention data freshness or response characteristics, but for a read-only lookup the essential behavior is present.

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: the core behavior appears in the first line, followed by useful examples and a brief filter instruction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship between near_me, lat, lon, and within_km, nor does it explain the default worldwide behavior well enough to prevent incorrect assumptions. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as search_aircraft or fleet_view.

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 compensate. It adds real value for type_code with concrete ICAO examples and gives a brief hint that near_me toggles filtering. However, lat, lon, and within_km are left entirely to inference, even though their interaction with near_me is important for correct invocation.

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 states the core purpose clearly: list every airborne aircraft matching one ICAO type code, either worldwide or nearby. The example codes make the type_code parameter concrete and help disambiguate it from aircraft-by-registration or aircraft-by-route tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'one ICAO type code' scope is a strong differentiator.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you want all airborne aircraft of a specific ICAO type, globally or near the user. It also tells the agent to set near_me to filter to a local area. However, it gives no guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling tool should be preferred for related queries, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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