find_airport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's '(offline)' wording reinforces the openWorldHint=false annotation with useful plain-language context, but adds nothing about result count, pagination, or how ambiguous queries are resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the resource, and the accepted input forms; there is no filler to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter surface is small. The only real gap is that nothing tells the agent how to use 'limit' or what happens with an unmatched query, which keeps it from a 5.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema itself, while 'limit' is undocumented in both places, though its default, min, and max make it fairly self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('look up') and resource ('IATA airport codes') plus the input domain ('by city or airport name'), which is enough to separate it from search_flights and find_cheapest_dates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from compare_airports, which also works on airports, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives among the siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The '(offline)' note hints at the data source but gives no guidance on when this lookup is the right choice versus compare_airports or search_flights.

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