identify_aircraft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that results are cached permanently and explains the rationale, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the input rule and caching behavior. 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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the operation's purpose, input options, expected output fields, and caching behavior. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit 'exactly one parameter' enforcement and identifier formats, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a confident call.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds the essential real-world meaning for all three parameters by mapping them to ICAO hex, registration, and callsign, and states that any one is sufficient. It could improve by specifying format examples or how multiple supplied params are handled.

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 a specific deliverable: 'Full identity for one aircraft: type, operator, route, and a photograph.' This clearly distinguishes individual identity lookup from sibling tools like find_by_type or search_aircraft, which cover broader queries.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent how to invoke the tool: 'Give any one of an ICAO hex, a registration, or a callsign.' However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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