search_aircraft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are airborne aircraft and that filtering is combinable and optionally location-based, which is useful. However, it does not mention default behavior such as the limit of 40, what happens when no filters are supplied (likely returns a general sample), or whether the result is sorted/ranked — leaving the agent to infer the default 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 well structured: an opening sentence states the core purpose, a second sentence summarizes filter categories and scope, and three short example queries make the intended usage concrete. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description conveys the most important semantic pieces: filter types, combinability, geographic scoping, and real-world query patterns. It does not cover the limit default or explicitly describe the result set shape, but the examples and filter enumeration bring it to a reasonably complete level.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the semantic meaning of airline (ICAO code), type_code (aircraft type, with the '747' example), altitude band, speed band, military status, and the near-location/within-distance concept. However, it does not explicitly mention the limit parameter or the near_me toggle, so a couple of parameters remain unaddressed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('airborne aircraft') and explicitly states it is a general, multi-filter search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is ('This is the general search') and providing concrete query examples covering the main filter dimensions (type, airline, altitude, speed, location).

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 strong usage context: 'any combination of filters' plus 'worldwide or within a distance of a location' and labels this as the general search. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a 5, but the examples and scope statement give an agent enough to select this tool.

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