List IATA codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no parameters are required and that the full airport list is returned, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or rate limits for what is effectively an unpaginated full-list endpoint.

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-loads the Overview, but the four markdown sections are heavily redundant for a zero-parameter listing tool — 'IATA codes' and the hotel-search use case are restated in the Overview, When to Use, and Quick Start. Roughly half the text could be cut without losing information.

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 simple read-only reference endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately covers what data comes back (codes, names, coordinates, country codes) and that annotations handle the safety contract. The main missing piece is any differentiation from the near-identical airport/IATA siblings.

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 only parameter is an optional timeout, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'No parameters required' is accurate for required inputs but silently omits the timeout knob, adding no real semantic value over the schema.

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: 'Get IATA airport codes with airport names, coordinates, and country information.' An agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many similar siblings (get_data_flights_airports_iatas, get_data_flights_airlines_iatas, get_data_flights_airports), which share overlapping subject matter.

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 clear contexts (airport searches, location selection, geographic reference data). It does not name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one, which matters here given the crowded IATA/airport sibling set.

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