Airport departures and arrivals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior: it is live, covers today from an hour ago onward, and includes current weather. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but those are less central for this read-only public-data tool.

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 in one sentence and followed by a compact example. It avoids restating schema details and has no wasted text.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned board fields and time window, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It could more explicitly route the agent away from flight_status or flight_schedule, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's example reinforces how airport, direction, and otherAirport combine, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

It names the specific resource (an airport's live departure or arrival board), the passenger-flight scope, and the fields returned (times, delay, status, terminal, gate). This is enough to separate it from specific-flight tools such as flight_status and schedule-oriented tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: Taiwan airports, today's board starting an hour ago, passenger flights, and a concrete example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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