get_airport_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully takes on the burden of transparency. It describes inputs (iata_code, icao_code, country_code, city_code), the output fields (full name, city, country, coordinates, elevation, timezone, runways, yearly departures, localized names), and a trigger for automatic use. However, it does not address potential limitations like the maximum number of airports returned for country/city queries or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections: TRIGGER, main function, USE CASES, WORKFLOW ROLE, INPUT. It is front-loaded with the most important trigger information and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers triggers, use cases, workflow integration, input options, and output fields comprehensively. Absence of output schema is mitigated by listing output fields. Minor missing detail: whether country/city queries have a result limit, but overall very complete for a lookup tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by linking parameters to use cases (e.g., iata_code for a single airport, country_code for a list) and explaining the _fields parameter. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 looks up airport details by code and returns comprehensive information. The TRIGGER statement instructs automatic use when a user asks about an airport's details or expands a code, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying its role after other tools like get_airport_schedule.

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 use cases are provided (e.g., 'What's the full name of LHR?', 'List all airports in Bulgaria') along with a workflow role that tells the agent to call this tool after get_airport_schedule or find_routes to convert codes to names. This gives clear direction on when and how to use it.

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