flight_scan

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: cost ($0.03 USDC) and engine (SequenceMiner). It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but the cost is a significant behavioral trait that aids agent decision-making.

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, front-loaded with the action and key details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 one optional parameter with high schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's function, engine, cost, and input region. Could mention return type but not critical.

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 a description for the region parameter. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema since the tool description already indicates named airspace regions. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 tool performs sequence anomaly analysis for a named airspace region, detecting specific anomalies like emergency squawks, rapid descents, and speed anomalies. It uses a named engine and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., anomaly_scan) by being flight-specific.

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 flight anomaly detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like anomaly_scan or other scanning tools. No exclusions or contrasting guidance is provided.

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