find_airports

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 return fields ('IATA code, name, city, country, and any additional cities/regions served') and shows example outputs. It does not cover edge cases like no matches, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence serves a role: definition, usage context, and return value details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return content and gives examples of behavior. It covers purpose, usage, and output, which is complete for a low-complexity lookup tool. Minor gap: no mention of limit behavior, but that's in the schema.

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% for both parameters, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context for 'query' with examples and clarification of accepted input types (city, region, country, airport name), going beyond the schema's generic 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find airport IATA codes by city, region, country, or airport name.' It clearly scopes the tool's function and distinguishes it from flight-search siblings by positioning it as a pre-flight resolution step.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this before searching flights to resolve place names to airport codes.' It also gives concrete examples (Nottingham, Argentina) that illustrate when it is especially useful, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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