Pro Flight Search Airport Delays

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is established. The description adds 'live' data context and clarifies that it covers delay, cancellation, and weather rules, which are useful behavioral details. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, first delivers core purpose, second adds alias context. No wasted words and key details are 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?

For a simple lookup tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It includes the live aspect and accepted input types, and there is no need to detail return values given the output schema. Minor gap is not mentioning any limitations or error cases, but these are not essential for this tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for both airport (including examples) and format (plain/markdown with semantics). The description's input note merely repeats schema info, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 retrieves live airport-level delay, cancellation, and weather flight-rules for a single airport. It also notes the tool is an alias for get_airport_delay_status, distinguishing it from siblings. Specific verb and resource make it unambiguous.

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 implies usage for checking real-time delay status for one airport, and the alias note clarifies relationship with get_airport_delay_status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over search_supported or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are evidently for searching supported airports. This is clear inferred context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds behavioral context: it searches tracked airports and returns IATA codes, which aligns with annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded, no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, input, expected result (matching IATA codes), and relationship to sibling tool. No gaps.

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% with a single parameter 'query' described. Description adds value by providing concrete examples (London, Paris, Chicago, ORD) and clarifying accepted input types: airport code, city, or airport name.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'supported airports', and the context 'when a user's airport reference is ambiguous'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it returns IATA codes for use with airport.get_delay_status, and mentions it's an alias of search_supported_airports.

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?

Description specifies when to use: when an airport reference is ambiguous, and what to do with results: use with airport.get_delay_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with non-sibling alternatives, but provides clear guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context like 'live' data and 'weather flight-rules,' but doesn't disclose additional operational behavior such as rate limits or error handling. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this addition is minimal but not contradictory.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and data types, the second clarifies input format and scope boundary. Every clause serves a purpose, with no redundant or promotional language.

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 tool is simple: 2 parameters (one required), no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core behavior, input flexibility, and a key limitation. The output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both 'airport' and 'format' fully described. The tool description repeats the airport input format ('Accepts IATA code, city, or airport name') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds little value here.

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 a specific action ('Get live airport-level delay, cancellation, and weather flight-rules') for a specific resource ('for one airport'). It also distinguishes from flight-tracking tools with 'Airport-level only, not flight-number tracking.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like search_supported.

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 a clear scope and a when-not condition: 'Airport-level only, not flight-number tracking.' This tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for flight-level tracking, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it returns matching IATA codes and the intended flow, consistent with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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?

Complete for a search tool with output schema. Explains trigger and downstream tool. Could mention ordering or limits but not necessary given output 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 covers 100% of the parameter with examples. Description adds context but does not significantly enhance beyond schema, so baseline 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?

Description explicitly states the tool searches tracked airports when ambiguous and returns IATA codes for get_airport_delay_status. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to call it.

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?

Clear usage context: call when user's airport reference is ambiguous, before airport status for city names. Does not explicitly state when not to use but provides solid guidance.

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