get_flight_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns current status (scheduled/active/landed/cancelled/etc.) and optional live position, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), nor does it cover rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, a short args section, and a return summary. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No redundant phrases.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return values clearly. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid flight code) or data freshness guarantees, but it is largely complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter flight_iata with an example ('AA100') and clarifies the format ('airline code + flight number'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema definition and fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the real-time status of a specific flight by its IATA flight code.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('real-time status of a specific flight'). The tool is distinct from siblings like search_flights (which searches by criteria) and resolve_airport/airline (which resolve codes).

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?

Usage is implied: when you have an IATA flight code and want real-time status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_flights if code is unknown). No when-not conditions are stated, so it barely meets 'implied usage'.

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