skydemon_search_airfields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: offline operation, read-only nature, matching rules (ICAO exact/prefix then name substring), and ranking (biggest airfields first). It does not say what an empty result or invalid query yields, but that is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the operational mode and matching behavior come before ranking detail.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers mode, matching, and ordering adequately. The main omission is any mention of the limit parameter and roughly how many results come back.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain query matching semantics well (ICAO exact/prefix, name substring), but the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('airfield search') and identifies the scope ('over installed charts, offline'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from skydemon_airfield_info (detail lookup) via the word 'general', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'General airfield search' implies broad query use versus the detail-oriented sibling skydemon_airfield_info, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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