Resolve airports

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful lookup semantics beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the lookup is offline/no-network and explains that a metro code like NYC returns the city code plus its airports.

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?

The definition is front-loaded and appropriately sized. The final sentence repeats the earlier 'offline' claim slightly, but the examples earn their place and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The input schema is fully documented, an output schema exists, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining important context about offline resolution and metro-code behavior, so nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by showing what the query parameter resolves to in practice, including metro-code expansion, which adds meaning beyond the schema's short examples.

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: resolving city or airport names to IATA codes. The examples (Zurich → ZRH, Barcelona → BCN, NYC metro behavior) make the function concrete and clearly distinct from the sibling search_flights tool.

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 description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the sibling search_flights or any alternative, leaving selection to inference from the tool name and purpose alone.

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