get_flight_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'real-time status' which implies dynamic data, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it requires an active session (e.g., from 'login'). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key information types without unnecessary words. Every element ('real-time status', specific data points) earns its place by clarifying scope and utility.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context but lacks completeness for a tool that likely interacts with external systems. It does not cover return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., authentication), which are important for an agent to use it correctly in a flight-related context with sibling tools like 'login'.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (flightNumber format, date format and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid flight numbers beyond the schema's 'e.g., DL 123 or 123' or constraints on date ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get real-time status') and resource ('for a Delta flight'), with explicit details on what information is included (departure/arrival times, gate information, delays, baggage claim). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'status' (generic) and 'get_flight_details' (likely broader details) by focusing specifically on real-time operational status.

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 usage context by specifying 'real-time status' and listing the types of information retrieved, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'get_booking' (reservation data) or 'get_flight_details' (possibly static details). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as clarifying if 'status' is a duplicate or different.

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