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.