fa_get_operator

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating the tool is read-only and may return unexpected fields. The description adds that it retrieves details by code, which is basic. It does not describe the response shape (other than the view parameter) or any specific behavior beyond that. Given annotations cover the read-only nature, the description adds minimal but acceptable context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient, but it could be slightly more structured, perhaps mentioning the view parameter behavior, which is already in the schema. The conciseness is good, no wasted words, and it is easy to parse. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized, though not as exemplary as a two-sentence summary with alternatives.

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 tool has a read-only snippet from annotations, a clear schema, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple lookup. It states the input (code) and provides a hint about ICAO/IATA. It does not explain what details are returned (e.g., name, country, callsign) or any pagination or error cases, but for a read-only lookup tool, it is reasonably complete. However, it could list typical fields returned for agents to set expectations, so a 3 is fair.

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%, meaning both parameters (id and view) are described in the schema. The description reiterates that id is the operator code (ICAO/IATA), which is already in the schema's description. The view parameter is fully described in the schema, including the difference between compact and full. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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: 'Get details for an operator (airline) by code (ICAO like UAL, or IATA like UA).' The verb 'Get' and resource 'operator' are specificaine, and the code types are clarified. It is distinct from siblings like fa_list_operators, but does not explicitly name that alternative, so a minor deduction. The description does not confuse with flight-related tools, and is unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when you have an operator code) and what the code can be (ICAO/IATA). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like fa_list_operators for browsing all operators, or fa_get_operator_flights for flights of an operator. The usage context is clear for a lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing among siblings.

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