List airports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 2-character minimum and relevance-ranked result ordering, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, or empty-result handling.

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 and well organized, but heavily over-structured for a one-parameter search tool: four markdown sections repeat the same two facts (query by name/city/code, minimum 2 characters) across Overview, What You Get, and Quick Start.

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?

With no output schema, the 'What You Get' section compensates by enumerating returned fields (matching airports, IATA codes, city/country, coordinates) and their downstream use. Combined with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the minimum length and example values. The description's 'q query string (minimum 2 characters)' largely restates the schema rather than extending it with matching syntax or relevance-tuning hints.

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: 'Search for airports by name, city, or IATA code using a text query.' This is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as get_data_flights_airports_iatas or get_data_iatacodes, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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, discovery, search validation) and ties the output to a downstream tool (post_flights_rates). It never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative sibling for full-list needs, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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