Live Flight Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It names the information returned (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates), which is transparent. However, it does not mention read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., invalid IATA code), or rate limits. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 description is a single sentence that is direct and free of extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields efficiently.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, listing all relevant output fields. However, it lacks handling of edge cases (e.g., invalid IATA code) and could mention that the tool is read-only. Still, for its simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'iata' with a default and description ('IATA airport code (default: JFK)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that coordinates and timezone are included in the output, which is not parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 'Get airport information' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the fields included (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_flight_departures' by focusing on static airport data versus dynamic flight data.

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 usage for retrieving airport details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The sibling tool name provides some context, but no direct guidance is given.

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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return fields but does not mention potential delays, real-time vs scheduled, error handling, or any restrictions.

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 description is two sentences: one stating the action and one listing return fields. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema) the description covers purpose and return data. Missing details like default behavior when no results or ordering, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (hours and airport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 flight departures for an airport and lists specific return fields like flight number, airline, status. It distinguishes from sibling get_airport_info, which likely provides airport details rather than flight 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_airport_info. The purpose is clear but lacks when-not-to-use or contextual alternatives.

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