Get airline by IATA code

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what is returned (name, codes, country, alliance, logo URL, active status), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention error behavior for invalid or unknown codes.

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?

Content is front-loaded and each section is coherent, but four markdown headings are disproportionate for a single-parameter read lookup. Some phrasing ('Fetch airline details to display alongside search results') restates the same idea already given in the overview.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the gap well by describing return fields, the alliance enum, active status, and a usage example. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as '2-letter IATA airline code (e.g., AA)'. The description's Quick Start repeats that same example without adding format constraints or edge-case behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve), resource (full details for a specific airline), and lookup key (2-letter IATA code). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like get_data_flights_airlines and get_data_flights_airlines_iatas, which return collections rather than a single record.

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 (display, enrichment, validation), which is strong context. However, it never names the alternative list tools or states when NOT to use this (e.g., 'to list all airlines, use get_data_flights_airlines'), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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