List airline IATA codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by describing the return payload (IATA codes paired with names) even though no output schema exists, plus the activeOnly filter behavior. No pagination or result-size caveats, though.

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?

Front-loaded with an Overview, which is good, but for a one-parameter lookup tool the four markdown sections are heavy and the 'Quick Start' paragraph largely restates what Overview and When to Use already said. Adequate but not tight.

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 trivial one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what comes back, and how the filter behaves. The only omission is any hint of list size or ordering limits, which is minor.

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% and the single activeOnly parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context by framing it as 'Active filtering available' with the effect of filtering out inactive airlines, slightly above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a lightweight list of airline IATA codes with names.' The word 'lightweight' implicitly separates it from the fuller sibling get_data_flights_airlines, but it never names the alternatives (get_data_flights_airlines, get_data_flights_airlines_iatas_iatacode), so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 (autocomplete, client-side filtering, code validation), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for a single-code lookup, so it does not reach a 5.

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