fa_get_nearby_airports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description adds no further behavioral details such as paging behavior, rate limits, or that the radius is in statute miles (already in schema). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word is necessary to convey the core purpose.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains the basic operation, but it omits mention of paging (cursor parameter) and the max_pages limitation, which are relevant for a complete understanding.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It provides a high-level context but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 specifies the verb 'Find', the resource 'airports', and the key constraints: near a latitude/longitude and within a radius in statute miles. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fa_get_airport, fa_list_airports, and fa_resolve_airport.

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 implies usage when needing airports near a location, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fa_list_airports for listing all airports or fa_get_airport for a specific airport). No guidance on when not to use it.

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