search_aircraft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that include_routes requires internet connection, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or response size. The description is minimal and lacks depth.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action and criteria.

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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or any limitations like pagination, which could be helpful for a search tool. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema compensate slightly.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description adds a note about internet requirement for include_routes, which provides some extra context, but overall adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Search') and resource ('aircraft'), and specifies search criteria (callsign, hex code, flight number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_aircraft_data and get_closest_aircraft, which are for different purposes.

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 usage for searching specific aircraft but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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