flight-airport-brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose provenance ('Open data (Wikidata)') and a paid-call cost model ($0.020 per call, x402/USDC) — non-obvious traits an agent should know before calling. It implies a read-only lookup but doesn't state rate limits, auth requirements, or failure behavior for unknown codes, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then examples and the alternative, then price. Efficient overall, though the branded prefix 'Xynaptic Flight Airport Brief' and the bracketed pricing tag add some non-essential framing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields, plus data source and cost. For a simple single-parameter lookup this is largely complete; only error/empty-result behavior for unrecognized codes is absent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'q' accepts either an airport name or an IATA code, which the schema only shows via a bare 'CGK' example. It does not explain the optional iata/icao/coord/country alternates, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific resource (airport fact sheet) with an explicit scope ('any airport worldwide by name or IATA code') and enumerates the returned fields: country, IATA/ICAO codes, coordinates, elevation, runway count, airlines. It also names the sibling it is not (notam-brief), so an agent can separate it from other lookup tools without opening the schema.

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 'Usage:' sentence states the positive case (airport fact sheet by name or code) and the exclusion with an explicit alternative ('For official FAA NOTAMs use notam-brief'). Concrete example calls (?q=Jakarta, ?q=CGK) further remove ambiguity about invocation.

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