search_airport_code

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear the burden. It describes return types (matched airports, cities, countries, airports-by-city/country). It is a read-only search operation, clearly safe. No mention of rate limits or pagination, but acceptable for a simple lookup.

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 front-loaded with trigger conditions and key information. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value (triggers, use cases, exclusions). Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical.

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 simplicity and the excellent schema and sibling list, the description covers purpose, usage context, limitations, and provides examples. No output schema, but return types are described. Completely adequate for correct selection and invocation.

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% (all 3 parameters documented). The description adds context for 'q' (part of name, length), but schema already describes it. No significant additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves place names into IATA/ICAO codes, with examples. It distinctly separates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not resolve airline names, directing to get_airline_info instead.

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 TRIGGER language: 'use automatically (often as the FIRST step)', specific use cases (e.g., 'What's the code for Sofia?'), and clear guidance on when not to use (airline names) with alternative tool named.

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