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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint the annotations don't carry: only large and medium airports are returned. It doesn't mention ordering or whether limit truncates silently.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope followed by the result constraint and the usage cue. No wasted text, though the sentences are short enough that one more clause on limit behavior could fit.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. The description covers search fields, result filtering, and the intended workflow role. The remaining gap is the `limit` parameter's effect, which matters for a search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by enumerating the matchable fields (name, city, IATA, ICAO) for the `q` parameter, but the `limit` parameter (default 20, max 50) is entirely unaddressed, and no match syntax or partial-match behavior is described.

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) and resource (airports) plus the four matchable fields and a scope constraint (large/medium only). An agent can distinguish it from the stats/arrivals/visits siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, Flight_get_airport.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find an airport's ICAO code before calling other airport tools,' which frames it as a lookup precursor. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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