mcp-southwest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: retrieving boarding passes with boarding group/position, optional PDF saving, and the prerequisite of being checked in. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the passenger isn't checked in, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the primary action and key output details, while the second covers the optional PDF saving and prerequisite condition. There's zero wasted text.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the core purpose and prerequisite well, but doesn't describe the return format (what the boarding pass data looks like), error handling, or authentication needs. The context about boarding group/position helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial given the lack of structured metadata.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'boarding group and position (e.g. A32, B15)' which relates to the output, not parameters, and 'Optionally saves as PDF' which hints at the optional 'savePath' parameter. This provides some value but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'saves') and resources ('boarding pass'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_reservation' or 'check_in' by focusing on boarding pass retrieval with boarding group/position details. It explicitly mentions the optional PDF saving capability, which further differentiates its functionality.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating 'Must be checked in first', which implies it should be used after check-in. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context suggests it's for boarding passes rather than reservations or check-ins.

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