airline_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about what information is returned (IATA/ICAO codes, AWB prefixes, cargo capabilities) and provides an example (176 = Emirates). No contradictions.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and then listing specific use cases and an example. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only lookup tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the scope (6,352 airlines), what can be searched, and what results include (codes, prefixes, capabilities). No gaps.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining AWB prefixes are 3-digit codes and giving an example (176 = Emirates). This helps users understand the parameter beyond the schema's regex pattern.

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 it searches 6,352 airlines by name, IATA/ICAO code, AWB prefix, or country. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs_code_lookup or unlocode_lookup, which are for different domains.

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 lists use cases: find airline codes, verify cargo capabilities, look up by country. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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