get_airport_mini_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only lookup' adds nothing. The trailing note 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' is boilerplate that is actively confusing on a GET endpoint and says nothing about response shape, payload size, or error behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but telegraphic rather than efficient – the endpoint string substitutes for a purpose statement and the mutation caveat is wasted words. Nothing is padded, yet little of it earns its place.

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 described, but the description still leaves the 'mini' variant's relationship to its sibling undefined and the non-path parameters undocumented. For a tool whose schema provides almost no guidance, this is under-specified.

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 carries the full burden. It only names one path key (airport_id) and says nothing about the query, payload, or confirm_destructive parameters, leaving three of four inputs unexplained in both schema and description.

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 is essentially the tool name plus its raw HTTP route (GET /v1/airport-status/{airport_id}/mini), which does convey a read of airport status. But it never explains what 'mini' means relative to the sibling get_airport_status, so the agent must infer the distinction from a URL suffix alone.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of get_airport_status, get_airport_board, or get_airports_home, which are the obvious alternatives. 'Read-only lookup' is the only hint, and it doesn't establish a selection condition.

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