resolve_airline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool accepts partial names or exact codes and returns matches, implying a lookup operation. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, if there are rate limits, or what happens on no match, which are gaps for a resolution 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 with two sentences and parameter details. It front-loads the main purpose before listing args. The arg descriptions are clear and efficient, though the full description is about 90 words, which is reasonable.

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 the tool has 2 params, 0% coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose and parameter constraints. However, missing output details, error behavior, and use cases limits completeness. It's adequate but not thorough.

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. It does explain keyword as 'Airline name or partial name... or exact IATA code' and max_results with range and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types, but doesn't describe return format or error handling, and max_results semantics could be clearer (e.g., what happens if fewer matches exist). Baseline with 0% coverage is 3, and description meets that minimum.

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 states the tool's purpose: to look up airline IATA codes by airline name or exact IATA code. It specifies the resource (airline codes) and the action (look up by name or code), and differentiates from siblings like search_flights and get_flight_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (resolving airline names/codes) and usage tips like minimum 2 characters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like resolve_airport, though sibling names imply they handle different domains.

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