get_airport_loungesGet all airport lounges at a specific airport by IATA code. Returns every lounge at the airport with terminal location, amenities, access methods, and ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iata | Yes | Airport IATA code (e.g. LHR, JFK, SIN) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds what the call returns: terminal location, amenities, access methods, and ratings. It also signals exhaustive results ('Returns every lounge'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Two short sentences lead with the action and scope, then list the returned fields. There is no filler or duplication of the schema.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description explains both how to call it and what the response will contain, compensating for the missing output schema. It could add edge-case behavior such as how no-lounge airports are handled, but the current coverage is strong.
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% and the single iata parameter is already documented with a pattern and examples. The description reinforces that the code identifies the airport but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 verb ('Get all'), a precise resource ('airport lounges at a specific airport'), and the required lookup key ('IATA code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_lounge_details or search_lounges by defining the exact scope: every lounge at one airport.
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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve the full lounge set for one airport identified by IATA code. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling tools such as find_lounges_by_access or search_lounges, so it stops short of the strongest exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the wishlist/visit/review lifecycles are clearly separated. However, get_my_passport, get_my_profile, and get_my_visits overlap somewhat in stats and visit history, which could cause minor confusion.
All tool names use snake_case and a verb-first structure, which is fairly consistent. The main deviation is mixing get_, list_, search_, find_, and discover_ for read operations, plus discover_more_flight_tools sits outside the domain naming pattern.
21 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a server covering lounge discovery, wishlists, visits, reviews, and user profiles. Each tool has a clear place and there is no obvious bloat.
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for wishlists, visits, and reviews, plus rich lounge discovery by airport, network, access method, and search. A minor gap is that lounge details only show review counts, not the actual reviews from other users.