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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details: the default commercial-airport filter, the optional expansion to include minor airports, and the dataset provenance. No pagination or rate-limit notes, but these are secondary for a read-only query tool.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the dataset, default vs. expanded behavior, return fields, and usage examples without repetition or filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The description explains output fields and gives realistic use cases, but it omits the required bounding-box parameters, which are essential for constructing a valid query. With no output schema and 43% parameter schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap, though the examples and default behavior keep it partially 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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It clarifies include_minor and iso_country indirectly, but the required latitude/longitude bounding-box parameters (lat_min, lat_max, lon_min, lon_max) are never explained, leaving the most critical inputs ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and dataset ('Query airports from OurAirports') and clarifies the default scope plus output fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from other query_* siblings by dataset and examples.

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 provides clear usage context with concrete examples ('airports near conflict zones', 'airports in Ukraine') and explains the default vs. include_minor=False behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, but the context is strong.

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