alaska_get_flight_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states 'real-time status,' indicating a read operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., non-existent flight), or output format. Adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and resource 'real-time status.' Efficient and clear.

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 simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main purpose and output elements. However, it could mention that it requires a valid Alaska flight number and date, and what happens if the flight is not found (e.g., error or null). Mostly adequate.

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% with well-described parameters (flight_number, date). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 gets real-time flight status and lists specific data (departure/arrival times, gate, delays), distinguishing it from siblings like alaska_get_flight_details (likely more static) and alaska_search_flights (finding flights).

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 implies real-time use but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid guidance. Alternatives like alaska_get_booking or alaska_get_upcoming_trips are not mentioned. Usage context is minimal.

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