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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: it returns suggestions rather than routes, and it directs the agent to disambiguate with the traveler when multiple matches occur. It does not mention result caps or index scope (local vs global), which holds it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope boundary, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return nature (suggestions, not routes) and the multi-match handling an agent needs to act correctly. The only gap is the undocumented `language` parameter, a minor omission against the rest of the coverage.

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 0% for 2 parameters, so the schema carries none of the meaning. The description usefully defines what `query` accepts (place name or IATA code), but says nothing about the `language` parameter or its default/format, leaving half the input undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (search) against a specific resource (Mubboo's local airport and city index) and the lookup keys (name or IATA code). The explicit 'not routes or flight availability' clause separates it from prepare_flight_search without needing to open either schema.

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 gives one clear when-condition (ask the traveler to choose when several places match) and one exclusion (not routes or flight availability), but never states when to reach for this versus get_service_info or prepare_flight_search. The resolution step before flight search is implied rather than stated.

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