privacy_blocked_aircraft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well for data expectations: it warns that positions are real, the identity is obscured by design, and users should not expect a registration or owner. It also supplies useful LADD/PIA context, though it stops short of describing the response format or filtering 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 compact and organized into three short paragraphs, front-loading the core subject before adding background. The LADD/PIA explanation is relevant context rather than filler, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than a crisp action-oriented statement.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needed to explain what the tool returns and how the optional spatial parameters affect results; it does neither. The privacy caveat is valuable, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what a successful invocation will produce or how to configure the search.

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%, and the description adds nothing about lat, lon, near_me, or within_km. The parameters are left entirely to inference, with no explanation of how location filtering works, what near_me means, or how within_km interacts with the coordinates.

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 identifies the subject clearly ('Aircraft using privacy programmes that hide their identity on most trackers') and implies the tool surfaces these aircraft, but it never states an action verb such as list, get, or retrieve. The tool name and sibling context help, but the description alone does not fully specify the operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like military_aircraft, identify_aircraft, or nearest_aircraft. The explanation about adsb.lol publishing unfiltered data hints at the tool's niche, but it does not state when this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided.

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