get_flight

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that the payload may include allFlights, traveler profiles, manualFlights and airport-status data, and that account tokens are redacted. It omits any error/not-found or partial-response behavior, keeping it below the top mark.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key scope constraint, with no filler. The secondary sentence is reserved for payload/redaction facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, identifier type, non-mutation guarantee and payload sensitivity. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden; it does add that the identifier is a UUID tied to GET /v1/flight/{id}, which is more than the bare 'Flight Id' string title. It still doesn't state the expected format (canonical UUID string) or what happens with a malformed/unknown id.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a flight, by UUID) and pins the source endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from list_flights, search_flights, poll_flight and subscribe_flight without opening a schema. The clause 'Does not add the flight' explicitly separates it from the create/upsert siblings.

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?

'Fetch a flight by UUID' tells the agent the precondition (an existing flight_id) and 'Does not add the flight' names one when-not case. No sibling alternative is named for the case where the agent has no UUID (e.g. search_flights), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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