get_airport_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an error is thrown for unknown airport IDs and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not mention data source, units, or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core function and data, the second adds regulatory context and error behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), and the description covers its main purpose and input. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., units for lengths/elevation, whether multiple runways are returned), which is a gap since no output schema exists to fill that role.

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?

The schema only provides a pattern (4 alphanumeric characters) and no description. The tool description adds crucial semantics by specifying 'ICAO' and 'single', clarifying exactly what airportId should represent and how it is constrained, which compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly states the resource (runway lengths/widths/surfaces and field elevation) for a single ICAO airport identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metar_taf and aircraft_performance, which handle weather and performance respectively.

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 a clear context for use by referencing the 14 CFR 91.103(b) requirement, implying when this tool is appropriate (preflight planning needing runway lengths). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it over siblings.

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