flight-tracker

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

Without annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the free, crowd-sourced nature, input code formats (IATA/ICAO), default direction and time window, and returned fields. While it doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently written in a few sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It is informative without being verbose, earning its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields (callsign, origin/destination, times, aircraft identifiers). It also explains defaults and input constraints, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining IATA vs. ICAO codes, the default 'departures' direction, and the default 4-hour look-back window. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 returns recent departures/arrivals at airports via a specific data source (OpenSky Network). It specifies the verb, resource, and data type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aviation-weather.

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 lists concrete use cases (logistics, travel agents, itinerary builders, supply-chain tracking), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the use case guidance is strong.

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