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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the return composition (providers, fleet summary, free-WiFi boolean), but says nothing about coverage gaps, freshness, or what happens for airlines with no data.

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 tight sentences with the return contents first and the usage discriminator second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a high level (providers, summary, free WiFi). For a single-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient, though the shape of the 'fleet summary' remains vague.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage (IATA code with UA/DL examples), so the schema does all the work. The description adds nothing about airline_code format or case sensitivity, which is an acceptable baseline case.

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?

Names the specific resource (WiFi providers an airline uses fleet-wide) and enumerates the payload shape: fleet summary plus a free-WiFi flag. It also scopes itself against flight-level lookups by saying 'about the airline rather than one flight,' though it never names get_flight_wifi directly.

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?

"Use when the question is about the airline rather than one flight" gives a clear selection rule and implicitly routes flight-specific queries to get_flight_wifi. No explicit exclusions or prerequisite conditions are stated, but the discriminating condition is present.

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