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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning status and published time and the scoping behavior, but it does not disclose things like data freshness, response size, or timezone behavior beyond what the schema notes.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and output, and the second clarifies the intended scoping behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential user-facing semantics: scope by city/date and include status and published time. It does not describe the exact response structure, but no output schema is present and the description covers the core invocation context sufficiently.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'city or date' but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource (Alicante-Elche airport arrivals/departures) and the key output (status and published time), and it states the scoping behavior by city or date. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like next_departures or search_alicante, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful context on when to use the tool: narrow by city or date instead of requesting the full daily list. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for flight-specific queries.

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