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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it names the data sources (live ADS-B and airport FIDS feeds), discloses the 60-second refresh cadence, caps results at 100 active flights, and specifies timestamp formatting. It stops short of stating auth requirements or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: capability first, usage boundaries second, operational behavior last. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (flights plus gate/terminal/delay/telemetry data), the result cap, freshness, and time format. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 both airport_iata and the departures/arrivals enum fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the structured fields already say, so the 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?

Opens with a specific resource and the concrete fields it exposes (departures, arrivals, gates, delays, terminal status). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like getTransitSchedule or getHotelAvailability, and the verb-plus-resource phrasing tells an agent exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (real-time flight boards, delays, terminal/gate assignments, baggage claim telemetry) and when not to (historical logs, ticket booking, ground transit), naming getTransitSchedule as the alternative. No ambiguity remains about tool selection.

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