get_airport_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a confusing hedge — 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' — on a tool declared read-only, and a confirm_destructive parameter sits in the schema unexplained, leaving the agent unsure whether the operation is truly safe.

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?

It is short and front-loads the route, but the fragments are cryptic ('path keys: airport_id') and the trailing mutation-tested note spends a sentence without adding usable 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with 0% parameter coverage, no usage guidance, and a self-undermining mutation caveat, the description does not give an agent enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only the 'airport_id' path key and says nothing about the query, payload, or confirm_destructive parameters, leaving most inputs undefined.

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 the HTTP route and labels it a 'Read-only lookup', which conveys that it retrieves status for an airport_id. However, it is largely a mechanical restatement of the endpoint rather than a plain-language statement of purpose, and it offers no differentiation from close siblings like get_airport_board and 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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for airport status variants. The only hint is 'Read-only lookup', which an agent could also infer from annotations.

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