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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description has a lower burden. It adds the 'live board' and date/hour scoping nuance, which is useful, but it does not describe output shape, pagination, rate limits, or timezone behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One focused sentence plus a concrete example call; the purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler. The inline JSON example is somewhat redundant with the schema examples, but it remains compact and 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?

Given full schema coverage, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for a capable agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are an explicit description of the returned board contents and how the optional hour filter behaves, but the schema covers the hour default and annotations cover the open-world nature.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description's example demonstrates parameter combinations, but it largely duplicates the schema examples and adds no new meaning beyond what the structured input schema provides.

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 clear verb and resource: it returns a live board of departures or arrivals for a specific airport at a given date/hour. The 'at an airport' and 'live board' phrasing helps distinguish it from sibling tools like flightstats_flight_status and flightstats_schedule, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 implies that this tool is for airport-level flight board lookups on a specific date/hour, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over flightstats_flight_status or flightstats_schedule. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues, leaving the usage context inferable but not explicit.

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