check_airline_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only query ("check") and lists return data, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention auth/rate limits. This is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the action and parameter format; the second lists return values. Front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description fully covers its functionality and return values. No gaps remain for the intended use case.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter: an IATA code with examples (AA, DL, LH, AF). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it could specify case sensitivity or format.

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 checks pet travel policies for a specific airline by IATA code, specifying return fields (cabin/cargo policies, breed restrictions, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_country_requirements or compare_airlines, which cover different domains.

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 clear context: use when you need airline-specific pet policies. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tool names imply distinct functions.

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