sighting_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: results are returned with the most recent first. However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects like how the optional filters behave, whether there is pagination beyond the limit parameter, or what happens when no aircraft identifier is supplied.

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 immediately communicates the core function and ordering. Every word adds value, and no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must be more complete to support correct invocation. It leaves the agent uncertain about parameter semantics, return structure, and how this tool relates to the many sibling history/record tools. This is inadequate for a full understanding.

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 explaining limit, hex_id, and registration. It only hints that an aircraft is identified (which could map to hex_id or registration), and it gives no meaning for the limit parameter. The agent cannot infer from the description how filtering or limiting works.

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 and resource: it returns recorded passes of an aircraft over the user's location. The ordering 'most recent first' adds further precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_history (flight path history) or my_records, because it scopes results to a single aircraft and the user's 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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs historical sighting records for an aircraft, especially ordered by recency. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over tools such as track_history, my_records, or spotting_stats, nor does it provide exclusions or example scenarios.

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