search_airports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious context: results come from 'cached reference data from a read-only sync' (implying possible staleness) and returns IDs that feed downstream calls. It does not discuss match semantics (prefix vs substring) or ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it searches and what it returns. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information (capability, downstream use, data source, bound).

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers matching fields, data source, limit bounds and downstream ID usage. The remaining gap is how query matching works and result ordering/tie-breaking, which matters for a search tool.

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% and neither parameter has bounds documented in the schema, so the description carries the load. It defines what 'query' accepts (code, name, city, country) and supplies the missing 'limit 1..100' range constraint, which is genuinely additive.

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 ('Search') plus resource ('airports') and enumerates the exact match fields (IATA/ICAO code, name, city, country). The resource-level differentiation from siblings like search_airlines, search_aircraft_types and search_flights is unambiguous from the name 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?

Explicitly tells the agent what the results are for: 'Returns IDs needed by route searches, airport status and manual-flight edits', which establishes when to call it. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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