fleet_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool 'Reads one shared global snapshot rather than querying per aircraft, so it is cheap to ask repeatedly,' and it explicitly warns about the volunteer receiver coverage limitation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then provides input format and alternative routing, and finally adds relevant behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler. The front-loading of the main purpose makes it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 read-only fleet lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (airborne flights), how to format the required input, when to use a sibling instead, and how to interpret incomplete data. The only minor omission is explicit limit semantics, but the parameter name and default make that low-risk.

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 description provides strong semantic guidance for the 'airline' parameter by explaining the ICAO format, examples, and the IATA alternative. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, and the schema has no description for it either. The limit parameter seems inferable from its name and default, but the description does not explicitly clarify its behavior or acceptable range.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Every flight an airline currently has airborne, worldwide.' This clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the tool name fleet_view reinforces the purpose. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like track_flight and airline_info, making the intent unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Give the ICAO airline code' and 'Use airline_info if you only have the two-letter IATA code.' It also explains the data source and coverage caveat, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. This goes beyond generic instructions and provides concrete decision criteria.

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