dast_airport_operation_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral detail by stating the output format ('xlsx下载链接'), the validity period ('24小时有效'), and the number of sheets ('6个sheet'). For a read-only statistics tool, this is meaningful transparency beyond the bare query semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the result metrics, then the query dimensions, then the output artifact. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers all four required parameters and communicates the return mechanism (a temporary xlsx link with six sheets). It stops short of enumerating the six sheet names or their exact columns, but for the purpose of invoking the tool this is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameter categories ('按机场、开始日期、结束日期、航线类型查询') without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema. It does not, for example, clarify airport code format or route-type mapping beyond what the schema already says.

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 opens with '指定机场核心运行指标' and then lists the exact metrics returned: daily planned/actual flights, punctuality rate, execution rate, half-hour flight waves, and airline/aircraft departure volumes. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling 'dast_airline_operation_statistics' by being airport-scoped rather than airline-scoped.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used for airport-level operational reporting and states the query inputs ('按机场、开始日期、结束日期、航线类型查询'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the airport scope and metric list give clear context for when this tool applies.

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