Get Flight Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: data freshness depends on last sync (no live API), status values, UTC timestamps, and a comprehensive list of returned fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with each sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints, status values, data freshness, and return fields. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, constraints, behavior, and return fields. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 already describes the single parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gets current operational status of a flight from the user's database, specifying it only works for flights already added and looks up the most recent instance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flighty_get_flight and flighty_current_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?

The description explicitly states the constraint that it only works for flights the user has added to Flighty, and that it retrieves the most recent instance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the constraint provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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