get_airports_home

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description's one added behavioral claim — 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' — is confusing next to a read-only tool and a readOnlyHint, and it never explains auth, rate limits, or response shape.

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 and read-only note, but the sentences are telegraphic fragments rather than purposeful statements, and the final caveat sentence adds noise more than signal.

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?

With four parameters at 0% schema coverage, an output schema present, and no annotation gaps to excuse it, the description leaves too much unsaid: two of the four parameters are undocumented and no return-value or pagination context is offered beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it constrains 'path' ('No path parameters') and points payload to a proto schema. It says nothing about 'query', nothing about the purpose of 'confirm_destructive' on a read-only tool, and gives no format details.

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 text mostly restates the name plus an HTTP route ('POST /v1/airport-status') and says 'Read-only lookup', but never states what data the tool actually returns or how 'home' airports differ from the many sibling airport tools (get_airport_status, get_airport_board, get_airport_mini_status, get_airports_map). An agent cannot distinguish it from those siblings without trial.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives; the only actionable hint is that the payload must match get_schema('AirportsHomeRequestProto'). That is a prerequisite pointer, not usage context, and it leaves the sibling-selection question entirely unanswered.

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