lookup_aircraft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful details (payload must match get_schema('AutocompleteAircraftTypeRequestProto'), no path parameters) but the final sentence 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' is confusing given the read-only claim and annotations, without providing actionable clarity.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint, but the sentences are disjointed and the closing mutation note undermines clarity without adding useful context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered. However, with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly without extra discovery (e.g., calling get_schema).

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%, so the description must carry the full burden. It partially addresses 'payload' (referencing get_schema) and 'path' (says none required), but leaves 'query' and 'confirm_destructive' entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Read-only lookup') and the endpoint path ('autocomplete/aircraftTypeFromTail') implies looking up aircraft type by tail number. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from sibling search_aircraft_types, so an agent could confuse the two.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are named. The agent is left to infer that this is for tail-number-based lookup versus other aircraft-search siblings, with no exclusions or context.

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