flight_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns scheduled vs estimated times, delay, and cancellation info, implying a read-only query. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization needs, or response format details, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, using a single purpose sentence followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without 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 hints at return content (times, delay, cancellation). Combined with clear parameter descriptions and a specific purpose, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though explicit output details would improve it.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively adds meaning to all three parameters: carrier_code (IATA, example 'AF'), flight_number (without carrier, example '1234'), and departure_date (ISO format 'YYYY-MM-DD'). This exceeds the raw schema and provides actionable guidance.

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 purpose: 'Get the status of a flight' with specifics on what is included (scheduled vs estimated times, delay, cancellation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_flights (searching) and predict_delay (predicting) by focusing on current status retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it, such as for historical data or predictions.

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