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

Given no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It clarifies the live nature of the data and explicitly excludes schedule/delay information, which is important behavioral context. It does not mention data sources or update frequency, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. The second sentence adds a key exclusion without extra length.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is reported, what is excluded, and the parameter is fully documented. However, it could hint at the response format (e.g., list of flights), so minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes the 'code' parameter with examples, so 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that it is an airport.

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 ('Report') and identifies the resource ('what is happening at an airport right now'), further detailing the categories (on ground, approach, climbing out). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flights_track by explicitly stating it is live positions, not the timetable.

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 provides clear when-to-use context ('want to know what is happening at an airport right now') and an explicit when-not ('says nothing about scheduled or delayed departures'), which helps the agent choose this over flights_track or timetable tools.

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