Flight timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — newest-first ordering, the wrapper shape, and that events are verbatim airline text. It does not state volume limits or whether history is truncated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 identifying scope and return shape are front-loaded, and the routing sentence closes it cleanly. The first sentence is dense with opaque field names, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the envelope keys and the per-entry fields (`occurredAt`, `title`, `source`, `events`). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100% and each parameter has a detailed description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the notion of 'one flight leg', which indirectly motivates the origin/destination narrowing already explained in the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (the airline's own change history for one flight leg) plus ordering (newest first) and the exact response envelope `{flightKey, count, data}`. It is clearly distinguishable from `get_flight`, which it explicitly names as carrying the same data.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ('what changed', 'why is it late') and an explicit exclusion: call this only when the history alone is needed, since `get_flight` already contains it. That is a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use against a named sibling.

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