lookup_airport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions searchable fields (city, airport, country) but omits details like case sensitivity, partial matching behavior, output format, or error handling. Basic transparency is present, but richer context would aid the agent.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and scope.

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 lookup tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. It could mention that the result is a list of matches or provide a typical output shape, but it remains sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by stating the corpus size (8,800+ airports). The parameter's purpose is fully documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it without redundancy.

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's purpose: 'Look up airport IATA codes by city name, airport name, or country. Searches 8,800+ airports.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('airport IATA codes'), and the scope is quantified. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights or find_nearby_airports.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_nearby_airports is provided. The intended use is implied by the description, but an agent would benefit from knowing that this is for IATA code resolution specifically, not for finding airports by location or other criteria.

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