is_this_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the query concept but does not disclose what 'seen before' means, how location is determined, whether the operation records anything, or what the response indicates.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core idea is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of operational detail.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent has little information about what the tool returns or how the three identifiers interact. The description is too minimal to be fully actionable in a multi-tool context.

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, but it only loosely maps 'airframe' to hex_id/registration and 'type' to type_code. It does not explain each parameter's role, required combinations, or how registration relates to the other identifiers.

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 frames the tool as a check for whether a specific airframe or type has been seen over the user's location before, which is a distinguishable purpose. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'determine' or 'check', and doesn't name sibling distinctions, but the intent is not vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sighting_history or whats_overhead. The only implied context is a novelty question, but no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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