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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the airline-level scope and mentions the output components, but does not disclose additional behavior such as data sourcing, freshness, or limitations.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the output content, and the second gives the usage condition, which is exactly the structure an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the returned information (providers, fleet summary, free status). However, 'fleet summary' is somewhat vague and the description does not clarify the response shape or edge cases like unknown airline codes.

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 100%: the single required parameter, airline_code, is fully documented with format and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: fleet-wide WiFi providers for an airline, plus a fleet summary and free-WiFi status. It distinguishes from flight-specific tools by saying the question is about the airline rather than one flight, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not name the sibling tool.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: use when the question is about the airline rather than one flight. This provides a clear usage boundary and implicitly excludes flight-specific WiFi lookups, but it does not name the alternative tool such as sw_get_flight_wifi.

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