List airport IATA codes

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 covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't: it is a bulk 'lightweight' list intended for download-once-and-filter-locally usage, and it enumerates the returned fields in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Headers make it scannable and the purpose is front-loaded, but for a single-optional-filter tool the content is padded and self-repeating: the 'Quick Start' paragraph restates what 'When to Use' and 'What You Get' already said about calling with and without q.

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 description correctly compensates by listing returned fields (IATA codes, names), which is the right move. It is undermined by the required-vs-optional contradiction for q and by no mention of result size or pagination behavior for a bulk list tool.

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% but that coverage is only the string 'Search query', so the description meaningfully clarifies that q filters by name or by code. However, it also claims 'Call with no parameters to get all airport codes and names' while the schema marks q as required, which is an unresolved conflict in parameter semantics rather than added clarity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a lightweight list of airport IATA codes with names. It differentiates the payload (codes + names, optional filtering) from the broader get_data_flights_airports sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_data_iatacodes or get_data_flights_airlines_iatas.

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 context an agent can match against. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (e.g., the per-code lookup tool) or stating when not to use this one.

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