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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — a static dataset of ~9,500 airports with coordinates, elevation, country, region and city, and that the output includes flight time in addition to distance — but says nothing about units, formatting, or behavior on invalid codes.

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 first two sentences say the same thing twice, and the rest is a feature dump mixing in capabilities from other tools rather than front-loading what this tool computes. Content that matters (great-circle distance, flight time) is buried mid-sentence.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden — it does state it returns distance and flight time, but omits units, precision, and error behavior. The dataset attributes are filler for a caller who only needs from/to. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the two required parameters (from/to) are documented as IATA/ICAO codes with examples, so the schema does the work. The description only echoes 'IATA or ICAO code' without adding format, fallback, or ambiguity-resolution guidance.

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 does eventually name a specific computation ('great-circle distance and flight time between two airports'), but it opens with a tautological restatement of the title and then lists capabilities that belong to siblings (airport lookup by IATA/ICAO, search by name or city, nearest airports). It never distinguishes itself from airport_info, airport_search, or distance_between_places, so an agent could easily mis-route.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The listed 'lookup/search/nearest' capabilities actively suggest the tool covers jobs handled by airport_info and airport_search, with no statement of which one to pick.

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