Live Flight Data

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

No annotations; description only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. Minimal information beyond the obvious.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, every word valuable. No unnecessary content.

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?

Lists return fields, which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, return structure (single object vs list), or behavior for invalid codes. Moderately complete for a simple tool but gaps remain.

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% with the parameter 'iata' already described as 'IATA airport code (default: JFK)'. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves airport information (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates) for a given IATA code, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_flight_departures which likely deals with flights.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tool exists but is not referenced.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it returns data, implying read-only but doesn't disclose other behaviors (e.g., authentication, rate limits, latency, pagination). Limited transparency beyond basic function.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action. Efficient but could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity. No wasted words.

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?

Covers basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on result format, sorting, filtering, or how parameters affect output. No mention of sibling tool or when alternatives are better. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions already fully explain parameters (hours: look-ahead window, airport: IATA code). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get flight departures' and resource 'from an airport'. Lists specific fields returned (flight number, airline, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tool 'get_airport_info' which likely provides general airport data rather than departure schedules.

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. Does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases. The sibling tool is not referenced to help the agent decide.

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