track_flight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide a key behavioral detail: it returns nothing for two indistinguishable cases—not currently airborne or outside receiver coverage. It also discloses the global feed search behavior. This goes beyond a simple tautology and gives the agent important expectations about empty results.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first immediately states the purpose and scope, the second adds essential behavioral and coverage context. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

While the description clarifies scope and an important edge case, it does not explain what a successful result contains—there is no output schema—nor does it define parameter requirements or differentiation from siblings. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it still needs parameter and output semantics, which are absent.

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 does not mention callsign or registration at all. There is no guidance on whether at least one is required, how they interact, or what format to use. The description fails to compensate for the bare schema, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb-resource relationship: locating a specific flight's current position anywhere in the world. It also distinguishes itself from circle-based tools by explicitly noting 'Searches the whole feed rather than a circle,' though it does not name a sibling. This is clear and actionable.

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 when to use this tool—when you need a worldwide look for a specific flight rather than a local area—but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like track_history or nearest_aircraft. No explicit 'use X instead' guidance is given.

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