fa_get_flight_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tier requirement and the scope relative to fa_get_flights. It does not contradict the annotations, and enhances understanding of limitations (401 for free tier).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a key constraint (tier). It could include more about pagination or the time window, but the schema covers start/end descriptions and the sibling distinction is clear. The openWorldHint annotation suggests results may be large, but that is not addressed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'ident' can be a designator, registration, or fa_flight_id, and implies the tier requirement. Although it doesn't detail other parameters, it provides enough additional context to raise the score above baseline.

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 verb 'Get historical flights' and resource 'ident', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling fa_get_flights by noting 'beyond the recent window covered by fa_get_flights'. It also specifies the three accepted ident types.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for historical data beyond the recent window) and includes a critical prerequisite (tier requirement). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons but the context of sibling tools and the 'beyond recent window' clause sufficiently differentiates it.

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