Get Facility Info

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description reveals important behavior: facility visibility depends on the sim's loaded set, airports are a complete worldwide list, and a miss for airports indicates a wrong identifier rather than an out-of-range result. This adds meaningful operational nuance not in the annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The exception and its operational implication are stated efficiently, and every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 description covers the core lookup action, the loaded-facility scope, the airport exception, and the interpretation of misses. With an output schema present, no additional return-value detail is needed. The tool is fully understandable from the description alone.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, but it is not required because the schema already documents them sufficiently. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('look up'), a resource ('airport, waypoint, NDB or VOR'), and an identifier type ('ICAO identifier'). It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from general sim variable or event tools among the siblings.

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 gives clear context: facilities must currently be loaded, with airports as an exception. It also explains how to interpret an airport miss, which is practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the lookup use case is clear.

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