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.