Get flight status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds cost and freshness context the annotations cannot convey: 'FlightAPI key (1 credit per uncached call)' and 'results are cached for 2 minutes'. That is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent should know before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a concrete example, with the return payload front-loaded before the operational caveats. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it also covers cost and cache TTL. Input constraints (date window, IATA pattern) live in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents flight_number, date, and departure_airport formats and constraints. The description restates the two required inputs and supplies example values, but adds no semantics for departure_airport beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Live status of a specific flight by flight number and date') and enumerates the response contents: scheduled/estimated/actual times, terminals, gates, baggage belt, departed/landed. This distinguishes it from get_airport_schedule (all flights at an airport) and search_flight_prices without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives a concrete invocation example and effectively scopes usage to a single flight identified by number+date, which separates it from the airport-wide sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_airport_schedule or state exclusions, so it falls just short of the when/when-not bar.

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