get_airport_departures

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

The description mentions 'OpenSky' as the data source and includes a time range parameter, but it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether incomplete data may be returned. The lack of annotations increases the burden on the description, which is not met.

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 succinct (two sentences plus argument list) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first line states the function, the 'Args' section documents parameters. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter details. However, it omits information about the return format, result count, or potential errors, which would enhance completeness for an agent. Still, it is mostly adequate given the tool's low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for both parameters: 'airport_icao' includes concrete ICAO code examples (EDDF, KJFK, EDDM), and 'hours' specifies default (2) and maximum (24) values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles and types.

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 'Letzte Abflüge von einem Flughafen abrufen' (retrieve last departures from an airport), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_airport_arrivals' and 'get_airport_info' by specifying 'departures'.

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 last departures from an airport but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_airport_arrivals' or 'track_live_flights'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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