airport_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate those. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context: data covers 85,555 airports from OurAirports with cross-checks, ambiguous searches return ranked candidates, and it's reference data only. This goes beyond annotations.

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 moderately long but efficient. It front-loads the core lookup methods and return fields, then provides filter options, data source, usage guidance, and caveats. No unnecessary repetition; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly trimmed but well-structured.

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 complexity (4 parameters, all documented; output schema present; annotations provided), the description is complete. It covers all input variants, output fields, optional filter, data provenance, and important usage caveats. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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% with descriptive parameter names and patterns (e.g., IATA regex). The description adds meaning by stating that exactly one of iata, icao, or query should be provided, and that ambiguous name searches return ranked candidates. This supplements the schema without being redundant.

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's action: 'Look up an airport by IATA code, ICAO code, or free-text name/city search.' It lists the full record returned and distinguishes from sibling tools (airline_lookup, unlocode_lookup) by specifying scope differences.

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: 'Use when an agent has an airport code or name and needs the airport's identity, location or codes.' It also provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'Reference data only — not for navigation; verify current codes with IATA/ICAO.' Sibling differentiation is clear.

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