get_airports_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description mostly repeats read-only status and adds a confusing note that "Mutation behavior has not been live-tested," without clarifying return behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or other useful operational context.

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 description is short and front-loads the endpoint path, but it repeats the tool name, spends text on an ambiguous mutation caveat, and does not structure the payload guidance clearly. Some content does not earn 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?

Given four parameters, no schema descriptions, and multiple airport-related siblings, the description is not complete enough. It references get_schema for payload but omits what the map contains, how to choose this tool over alternatives, and how query or confirmation parameters work.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only covers payload via get_schema('AirportsHomeMapRequestProto') and says there are no path parameters. It leaves query and confirm_destructive unexplained, so two of four parameters remain undocumented.

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 identifies the endpoint and says it is a read-only lookup, but it never explains what an "airports map" actually returns or how it differs from siblings like get_airports_home or get_airport_status. The name/endpoint restatement provides only a vague sense of purpose.

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 the many airport-related siblings. The description only gives endpoint and payload-schema mechanics, not selection criteria or prerequisites.

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