search_airports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the data source ('azair airport database') but does not disclose return format, matching behavior (exact/partial), result limits, or other operational details. This is a minimal disclosure for a search tool.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes value without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. The description states what is searched and by which keys, which is largely sufficient for basic invocation. A slight gap remains around return value expectations, but the scope is small.

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?

The input schema already describes the single 'query' parameter as 'Airport IATA code or name to search for' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this same concept without adding additional meaning or nuance beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('airports'), and specifies the search keys (IATA code or name). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_flights' by resource type.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool (when searching for airports), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. The sibling name 'search_flights' provides some context, but no direct guidance is given.

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