search_aircraft_registry

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses free/no key access, returns partial data (record_id) with full registration requiring payment, and mentions a coverage block indicating data completeness. This gives the agent a solid understanding of behavioral traits.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a clear intro, return field list, note about get_record, use cases, and args section. Every sentence provides value, with no filler.

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?

Covers query usage, return fields, coverage block, and the follow-up get_record tool. With no output schema and a single parameter, the description provides all necessary context for effective invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates with an elaborate 'Args:' section explaining the query parameter with concrete examples like 'Cessna 172', 'N17973', and 'MARION TX', as well as listing searchable fields.

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?

Description clearly states it searches US civil aircraft registrations from the FAA Releasable Aircraft Database, listing many searchable fields and return fields. Resource and scope are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (aircraft ownership lookup, fleet research, asset tracing, due diligence) and instructs to call get_record to buy full registration, showing how to proceed beyond the free search. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to other search tools, but the domain differentiation is clear.

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