skydemon_airfield_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that offline data (runways, frequencies, fuel, circuits, contacts) is always available, that online pilot notes and live feedback require a login session, and that online_error is set when unauthenticated. It doesn't cover rate limits, caching, or return shape, but the auth-dependent behavior is the key trait here and it's clearly explained.

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?

Two compact sentences front-loaded with the tool's core output, followed by the conditional auth caveat. No filler; each clause carries information about contents or behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must tell the agent what comes back—and it does (offline record fields plus online notes/feedback). It also surfaces the online_error signaling for unauthenticated calls. Missing explicit guidance on the icao_or_name format and any pagination or token-expiry behavior keeps it just short of 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that include_online controls whether online extras are fetched (and by implication that without a session they degrade gracefully). icao_or_name accepts an ICAO code or a name, which is inferable from the param name but not stated explicitly in the description; the schema itself gives no description. This leaves one parameter underspecified, but the online/offline distinction—the more semantically loaded parameter—is covered.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (full airfield info) and enumerates the contents it returns (runways, frequencies, fuel, circuits, contacts, pilot notes). This clearly distinguishes it from skydemon_search_airfields, which is a discovery tool rather than a detail-fetch tool.

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 the context of use (detailed airfield lookup) and notes the login prerequisite, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus skydemon_search_airfields or what conditions would route the agent elsewhere. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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