List airlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the default behavior ('call with no parameters to get all airlines') and enumerating the returned fields (name, IATA/ICAO codes, country, alliance, logo URL), which helps the agent predict results.

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?

It is front-loaded with an Overview and scannable headers, which aids selection. But the 'What You Get' bullets are padded and repetitive ('Full airline records including...', then 'Alliance membership for each airline', then 'Active status...'), restating content already implied by the parameter list and title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and 'What You Get' does describe the fields returned. Combined with full schema parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the parameters with the Quick Start ('q' searches by name, 'activeOnly=true' excludes inactive) and expands the alliance names, but omits 'vanilla_alliance' and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 Overview states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a list of airlines with optional filtering by name, alliance, and active status.' An agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_data_flights_airlines_iatas or get_data_flights_airlines_iatas_iatacode, which is the exact ambiguity an agent faces here.

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 'When to Use' section gives three concrete scenarios (directory building, alliance filtering, active-only retrieval), which is clear context for invoking it. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or exclusions, even though siblings like the IATA-list tools exist and could be confused with this one.

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