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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety and open-world profile. The description adds the important scoping constraint that this is a broad free-text search for partial information, but it does not describe matching behavior, result ordering, or result limits.

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, both front-loaded with actionable routing information. Every clause earns its place by either defining the search scope or directing the agent to an alternative.

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 one-parameter search tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential selection guidance. The only missing piece is a brief note on how matches are ranked or limited, which is minor in this context.

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%, so the single query parameter is fully documented with examples. The description confirms that the query is a free-text name or partial term, but adds no syntax or matching details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource scope (airlines and flights) and explicitly labels it as free-text search for names or partial terms. An agent can tell it apart from get_flight_wifi, get_airline_wifi, and get_tail_info without opening their schemas.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (only a name or partial term) and when not to use it (when you already have a flight number, airline code, or tail number). It says to use 'a specific tool' instead without naming the specific siblings, which leaves a small inference step.

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