military_aircraft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the real-time aspect ('currently airborne') and the filtering behavior, which gives basic transparency. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, data limitations, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond what is implicitly obvious.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives the key usage instruction for the main filter, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain lat/lon semantics, the default worldwide behavior, what the response will contain, or any limitations. The core idea is present, but an agent may not know how to correctly construct location-based requests or interpret results.

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 for all four parameters. It explains near_me and within_km indirectly, but lat and lon are not described at all, leaving their role ambiguous. The phrase 'near a location' hints at coordinates but does not clarify how lat/lon are used or whether they are required together.

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 states the tool returns 'Military aircraft currently airborne' and defines the geographic scope as 'worldwide or near a location.' It identifies a specific resource and behavior, distinguishing it from generic aircraft tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools by name.

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 clear operational context: use this to find military aircraft currently airborne, with an optional location filter. It explicitly explains when to set near_me to true, but it does not provide exclusions or mention alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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