get_airport_info_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for a non-empty code and lists the returned fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it describe error handling or response format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a clear requirement. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and avoids any unnecessary filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, input requirement, and output fields. It does not explicitly contrast with 'get_airport_info_light' but is otherwise complete for invocation.

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 100%, so the parameter 'code' is already described as 'Airport IATA or ICAO code.' The description repeats the requirement but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 tool returns detailed airport information with specific attributes (full name, ICAO/IATA codes, localization, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. The name 'get_airport_info_full' and the word 'detailed' distinguish it from the sibling 'get_airport_info_light'.

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 a required input condition ('REQUIRED: code must be provided and non-empty') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_airport_info_light'. It does not mention any exclusions or comparison among siblings.

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