check_live_traffic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions near-real-time data refresh from ADS-B receivers, which is helpful, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only vs. destructive. Without annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some context but has gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and details following. It is concise but could be more structured with bullet points or explicit mentions of tool limitations, though not necessary given the simplicity.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields (callsign, altitude, speed, heading). It covers the main purpose and data sources, but lacks information on response format or pagination. For a simple query tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (lat, lng, radius_nm), so the description does not need to add further details. The description provides no additional param semantics beyond what the schema already offers, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 checks live ADS-B aircraft traffic near a location, specifies the type of entities (aircraft) and data returned (callsign, altitude, speed, heading). It differentiates from sibling tools like check_airspace and get_active_tfrs which focus on airspace rather than live traffic.

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 real-time use for monitoring aircraft positions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_airspace or preflight_briefing. It provides clear context on what data is returned, assuming the agent can infer usage scenarios.

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