whats_overhead

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful behavior: aircraft are ranked by noticeability (directly overhead first, about-to-be overhead second, then by elevation) and viewing conditions are included. However, it does not state what happens when lat/lon are null, how fresh the data is, or what the response shape looks like when no aircraft are found.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It states the question, the ranking behavior, and the rationale for including viewing conditions without digresing.

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 description covers the core scenario and result ordering well, but it leaves important gaps: no parameter semantics, no explicit guidance on choosing between this and overlapping siblings like coming_overhead, and no indication of what the returned data includes beyond ordering. Given no annotations and no output schema, a more complete description would strengthen an agent's ability to call it correctly.

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 mostly ignores the parameters. It only implies lat/lon through 'above a location' and gives no meaning for limit or radius_nm, including units or how they affect results. The property names and defaults in the schema are not enough to compensate for this gap.

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 states this tool returns aircraft currently above a location, ordered by what a person would actually notice, and includes viewing conditions. This specific purpose distinguishes it from siblings like coming_overhead and viewing_conditions by combining 'what is overhead right now' with 'where to look'.

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 establishes a clear use context: current sky visibility and 'where to look', which tells an agent this is for immediate, observation-oriented queries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'right now' framing and noticeability ranking provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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