nearest_aircraft

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare label: it specifies the ordering metric (slant range), the temporal scope (right now), and the visibility inclusion. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose what happens when lat/lon are null, what the return structure looks like, or any rate/feed behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes a meaningful differentiator at the end. There is no repetition, filler, or schema information duplication.

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 and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves coordinate default behavior, count semantics, and response format unstated. A minimal viable description for this spatial query tool would need at least one sentence explaining how the optional lat/lon values are used and what the returned list contains.

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 parameter meaning. It implicitly ties lat/lon to the reference location for 'closest' and slant range, but it does not explain the null defaults, how count behaves, or how many results are returned. The property names are self-evident, but important semantics like fallback location are missing.

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 what the tool returns: the closest aircraft by slant range, right now, with no visibility filter. It distinguishes itself from visible-only sibling tools like coming_overhead or whats_overhead by explicitly including non-visible aircraft. It lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'list', but the intent is unmistakable.

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 about when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives. The description implies a real-time proximity query, but it does not state prerequisites, coordinate fallback behavior, or how it differs from tools like coming_overhead or interesting_nearby.

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