airport_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that multiple matches may come back (hence the limit) and what the output values are (IATA codes), but says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on zero matches, or how ambiguous city names are ranked.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a worked example, followed by a tight Args block for the two parameters. Nothing is redundant and the core behavior appears first.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the essential inputs are covered, but the return shape is only sketched (IATA codes) and nothing explains ambiguity handling or empty-result behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry all meaning, and it largely does: query is defined as a city name, airport name, or 3-letter IATA code, and limit is defined as the maximum number of matches. The only gap is that the schema merely says `string`/`integer` while the description supplies the accepted formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Resolve a city or airport name to IATA code(s)") and reinforces it with a concrete mapping example ("Lisbon" -> LIS). It does not explicitly reference the siblings search_flights or cheapest_dates, but the lookup-versus-search purpose is self-evident.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is a code-resolution step to run before a flight search. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or that it should be called before search_flights/cheapest_dates.

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