Search Airlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing the return fields (id, name, iata, icao, alliance, website, callsign, formattedPhone) and stating sorting by relevance. No contradictions.

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, front-loading the purpose and quickly listing return fields. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff. Efficient and to the point.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: search criteria, return fields, and sorting. Could briefly mention pagination but not required for completeness. Annotations fill safety profile.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage. Description reinforces the query parameter's meaning but adds no new parameter details. The sorting info is relevant but beyond param semantics. Baseline score 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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Flighty airline database'), and the search criteria ('by IATA code, ICAO code, airline name, or alliance'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that search airports or 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 provides clear inputs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied but lacks exclusion criteria or context for when not to use.

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