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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'airport details' without specifying whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 is concise with one front-loaded sentence. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding more detail without losing conciseness.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what details are returned. It omits any information about the output structure or content, leaving the agent without essential context for using the response.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage; the tool description adds that the single parameter is an ICAO code, providing some meaning. However, it does not clarify the expected format or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer what a valid ICAO code looks like.

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 states the tool returns airport details by ICAO code, identifying the verb (lookup/get) and resource (airport) with a specific key. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like flight_intel, and lacks specifics on what details are returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied: when an ICAO code is known and airport details are needed.

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