search_metro_areas

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'limit 1..100' constraint and says little about result ordering, truncation, or search matching behavior.

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 purpose and followed by the limit constraint. It is efficient, though the terse 'limit 1..100' phrasing could be slightly clearer about which parameter it constrains.

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 and annotations are rich, reducing what the description must explain. Still, for a search tool with a required, undocumented 'query' parameter, the description is minimally adequate but does not fully specify search semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It usefully documents the 'limit' range as 1..100, which is absent from the schema, but leaves the required 'query' parameter's meaning and matching behavior unexplained.

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 and resource ('Search metro-area reference data') and scopes it to 'multi-airport route searches,' which distinguishes it from airport or airline searches. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_airports.

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?

The phrase 'for multi-airport route searches' gives a clear usage context that tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to alternatives such as search_airports.

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