Get airport by IATA code

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context via 'What You Get' — enumerating returned fields (name, city, country, timezone, IATA/ICAO, coordinates) since no output schema exists. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid or unknown code, keeping it below 5.

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?

Markdown sections are front-loaded with the purpose first, and the heading structure makes scanning easy. There is mild redundancy between 'When to Use' and 'What You Get' plus a somewhat ceremonial 'Quick Start' for a one-parameter tool, but nothing seriously wasteful.

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 single-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory and usage contexts an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter already documented as '3-letter IATA airport code (e.g., JFK)'. The description repeats the same example and format with no additional syntax, casing, or validation detail, so 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 and resource: retrieve detailed information for a specific airport by 3-letter IATA code. The singular-lookup framing distinguishes it from siblings like get_data_flights_airports and get_data_flights_airports_iatas, which are list-style endpoints.

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 (airport display, flight result enrichment, autocomplete validation) that tell an agent when this is the right call. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for a full airport list, so it falls just short of a 5.

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