airport_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only scope implicitly via "status", a per-call cost ($0.0045 USDC), p99 latency (1500ms), and the edge case that general-aviation-only closures are surfaced as notices rather than active disruptions. It does not mention error behavior for invalid or non-US codes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It is a dense but front-loaded single paragraph: purpose and outputs first, then parameter behavior, then scope, then cost/latency. Every clause carries information, though the parameter-recap sentence is mildly redundant with the schema and the run-on structure could be split for readability.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned data (ground stops, GDP delays, trend-bearing arrival/departure delays, closures, per-airport status values normal/delays/disrupted). Combined with scope, cost, and latency, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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% and the single parameter is optional, so the baseline is already 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare "US airport codes" example by specifying that both IATA (JFK) and ICAO (KJFK) forms are accepted and that supplying the parameter changes the shape of the response from all-events to per-airport status.

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 a specific verb+resource: live US airport disruptions sourced from the FAA National Airspace System, and enumerates the exact disruption types (ground stops, GDPs with average/max delay, arrival/departure delays, closures). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with airport status, so the function is unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the two operating modes: pass airport codes for a per-airport status, or omit them to return all current events. It also sets a hard scope boundary ("US airports only"). It stops short of naming alternatives or explaining what happens with an unknown/non-US code, so it is strong context rather than fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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