search_wifiFree-text search across airlines and flights when you only have a name or partial term. Use a specific tool instead when you already have a flight number, airline code, or tail number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query, e.g. "United" or "UA123" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a little context about the search scope but does not disclose return format, potential limitations, or behavior when no results are found. With annotations covering the main safety concerns, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it concise and structured effectively.
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 has only one parameter, annotations covering safety, and sibling tools providing alternatives, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and exclusions. It does not describe the output format, but the lack of an output schema reduces this concern. A slight deduction for not mentioning what results look like.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including an example. The description does not add further semantic detail about the query parameter beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('search') and clearly defines the resource ('across airlines and flights'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it is for free-text search when you only have a name or partial term, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you only have a name or partial term') and explicitly advises using a specific tool when you have a flight number, airline code, or tail number, pointing to alternatives without naming them but making the choice clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_flight_wifi and get_wifi_facts both answer flight-level WiFi questions, creating overlap. The descriptions help by directing users to get_wifi_facts as the preferred choice, yet the redundancy remains. Other tools like get_airline_wifi vs list_airlines are differentiated by scope, but the core flight lookup is duplicated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_airline_wifi, get_flight_wifi, get_rollouts, get_speed_stats, get_tail_info, get_wifi_facts, list_airlines, search_wifi. The verbs (get, list, search) are appropriate and uniform. No mixed naming conventions or camelCase deviations are present.
The 8 tools are well-scoped for a WiFi information server, covering airline, flight, aircraft, speed, rollout, and search capabilities without overwhelming redundancy. Each tool serves a distinct need (except the noted overlap), and the count sits comfortably in the ideal range.
The tool set comprehensively covers the in-flight WiFi domain: airline-wide info, flight-specific predictions, tail history, speed statistics, rollout progress, and free-text search. No critical operations are missing, and the inclusion of both airline and flight level lookups with fallback logic makes the surface complete for read-only information retrieval.