interesting_nearby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does so reasonably by describing scoring categories, threshold-based filtering, and the deliberately harsh threshold tuning with an approach-path example. Missing details include whether the tool mutates anything, how location defaults are handled, and what the returned aircraft data looks like.

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 first sentence immediately communicates the tool's value, the second explains the scoring mechanism, and the third provides useful calibration context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description captures the core selection logic and is viable for a straightforward call with explicit lat/lon/radius/minimum_score. However, it does not explain what happens when lat and lon are null, how radius_nm and minimum_score interact, or what the returned aircraft objects contain. Since there is no output schema, more operational detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 needs to compensate, but it never mentions lat, lon, radius_nm, or minimum_score. An agent must infer that 'nearby' maps to lat/lon/radius and 'threshold' maps to minimum_score. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no direct parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly identifies a filter-and-score tool for nearby aircraft, listing specific categories that make an aircraft interesting (emergency, rare type, military, large-and-low, close low helicopter) and stating that only those above threshold are returned. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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?

Use is implied: this is for when the user wants only notable aircraft rather than all traffic. The opening phrase and threshold discussion convey the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like emergencies, military_aircraft, or whats_overhead.

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