mcp-southwest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the flight isn't found. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 provides specific examples of what information is retrieved. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 read-only lookup tool with 4 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what information is returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about authentication, error handling, and return format that would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when 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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Southwest flight'), with explicit examples of what information is included ('status, stops, duration, gate, and aircraft type'). It distinguishes this read-only lookup tool from sibling tools like 'search_flights' (which finds flights) or 'get_reservation' (which retrieves booking details).

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 for retrieving details of a known specific flight, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_flights' (for finding flights) or 'get_reservation' (for booked flights). No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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