get_flight_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does this well by detailing what the response contains—scheduled, estimated, and actual times, terminal, gate, baggage belt, delay minutes, and both ends of the flight—and by disclosing that the operating flight is ordered ahead of codeshares. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for a lookup 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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences: core purpose, return-value summary, and usage guidance with alternatives. It front-loads the most important information and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary wording.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the search key, date behavior, the scope of returned data, the ordering nuance, and when to choose sibling tools instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds some useful context around the date default and the IATA number, but it does not significantly deepen parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up one specific flight by its IATA flight number' and clearly scopes the operation to 'the current day or a given date.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing a single flight and by listing distinct return data like actual times, gate, baggage belt, and delay minutes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the question names a flight number') and names concrete alternatives for related cases: flights_with_airline for browsing an airline's flights and historical_flights_by_date for past dates. This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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