Flight status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context by disclosing the temporal coverage ('flights around today') and the shape of returned data, which helps an agent know results are live and date-limited.

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?

Two compact sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the field list and a concrete example. The trailing example slightly duplicates the schema but is cheap and useful for recognition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (scheduled/estimated/actual times, delay, terminal, gate, status), which compensates well. The only gap is not clarifying how it differs from flight_board when a user asks for a board-style listing.

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 both parameters are already documented with patterns and examples. The description's 'CI100'/'B7 8751' example duplicates what the schema already shows, adding no syntax detail beyond it — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Live status of a flight to or from Taiwan' and enumerates the returned fields (times, delay, terminal, gate, status). This separates it from flight_schedule/flight_board in spirit, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies usage via 'TDX lists flights around today', telling the agent the data is near-real-time and date-bounded. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. the many flight_* and other transport siblings, leaving the agent to infer that a timetable request belongs to flight_schedule.

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