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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful context beyond the annotations – dataset size (9,500 airports) and the fields returned (coordinates, elevation, country, region, city) – but says nothing about result ordering, pagination or how the limit interacts with total matches.

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 opens with the title, immediately restates it ('Search airports.'), then pads with a run-on sentence listing features that are not parameters of this tool. Sentences do not earn their place; the core purpose is buried in keyword-style enumeration.

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 partially compensates by naming returned fields (coordinates, elevation, country, region, city), which is helpful. But it omits result format, ordering and limit/pagination behavior, and its inflated scope claim is a completeness liability rather than an asset.

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 q, limit and country are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of IATA/ICAO code and name/city lookup loosely maps to q, but adds no syntax guidance for country (ISO code format) or limit range beyond what the schema states.

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 opening sentences correctly state a verb+resource ('Search airports by name or city'), and the third sentence accurately notes that lookup works by IATA/ICAO code as well as name or city. However, the description then claims capabilities (nearest airports to coordinates, great-circle distance and flight time between two airports) that belong to sibling tools like airport_distance, muddling rather than sharpening its scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus airport_info, airport_distance or city_search. Worse, by advertising distance/flight-time computation it implies this tool should be picked for queries that a sibling likely owns, which is actively unhelpful for routing.

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