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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish a safe read profile, and the description adds meaningful context: an offline ~90k-airport base, inclusion of heliports and small runways, acceptance of multiple formats, and per-code matched_by feedback. No contradiction with annotations.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The inline return shape is compact but informative, and the reference to flightradar_nearby-ear is a single clause. No fluff.

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 one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the purpose, database coverage, lookup formats, a complete inline return-object shape, and a sibling combination tip. Remaining gaps are minor: error behavior when no airport matches and case-sensitivity or exact matching for 'GPS/local' values.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it explains the accepted inputs (IATA, ICAO, GPS or location), that multiple codes are allowed per call, and the per-code result shape. Slightly missing are constraints like maximum code count, normalization rules, or ambiguity handling between same.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Informações de aeroportos por código IATA, ICAO, GPS ou local') and clearly defines the scope: accept multiple codes and return airport metadata. It distinguishes from siblings by naming flightradar_nearby for traffic, making the static-info purpose explicit.

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 clear usage context: when you need informational airport data from an offline database, and explicitly recommends combining with flightradar_nearby to see traffic around an airport. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements for other siblings, but the channel of 'combine with X' provides adequate guidance.

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