fa_get_operator_flights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds context about board types but does not mention billing (max_pages capped at 20), pagination, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No superfluous words.

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?

Adequately describes purpose and board types. Missing mention of pagination (cursor) and billing implications (max_pages cap) which are in schema but not in description. For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists board values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No elaboration on cursor or max_pages parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('flight board for an operator'), and scope ('all flights, or arrivals/departures/enroute/scheduled'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like fa_get_operator (which gets operator details) and fa_get_flights (which likely gets flights without operator filter).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the resource name implies use for operator-specific flight boards, there are many flight-related siblings (fa_get_flights, fa_search_flights, etc.) and no comparison or exclusion of alternatives.

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