get_airport_board

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested,' which implies this endpoint may mutate state—directly contradicting the read-only annotation. This conflicting signal is more harmful than no signal at all.

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 text is short and front-loads the route, but the final sentence about untested mutation is wasteful and confusing rather than informative. Useful detail about the board's content is missing while misleading text is included.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but with 0% schema description coverage on four parameters and an annotation-contradicting mutation note, the description leaves too much for an agent to infer safely.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only names the path keys airport_id and direction, leaving query, payload, and confirm_destructive unexplained—especially problematic since confirm_destructive appears on an allegedly read-only tool.

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 names a specific endpoint (GET /v1/airport-board/{airport_id}/{direction}) and labels it a read-only lookup, so the action and resource are identifiable. However, it never explains in plain language what an 'airport board' returns (departures/arrivals, live status, etc.), and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_airport_status or get_airport_mini_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_airport_status, get_airport_mini_status, get_airports_home, or search_airports. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Read-only lookup,' which describes safety, not selection criteria.

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