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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value by disclosing that results include ratings and page links, and that the output feeds get_terminal. It does not describe match strictness or ordering, but the schema's 'all must match' note covers matching behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The scope and search axes come first, and the downstream handoff to get_terminal is placed at the end where it is most useful.

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?

This is a simple, annotation-covered, parameter-free-required search tool, and the description covers scope, searchable fields, and returned content. Without an output schema, it could say more about result ordering or total counts, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both the limit and query parameters are already fully documented, including the default and maximum. The description repeats the query axes without adding syntax, wildcard rules, or paging behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (find) and resource (terminals) and enumerates the searchable fields: name, slug, airport code, city. It also distinguishes itself from the retrieval sibling by stating that the slugs it returns are the ones get_terminal takes.

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 makes the intended workflow clear: search broadly across all airports first, then call get_terminal with the returned slug. It does not state when to prefer list_airports, list_terminal_airlines, or a direct get_terminal lookup instead of searching, so the routing is implicit rather than explicit.

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