weekendflights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it operates on already-priced/cached calendars rather than exhaustive search, results are price-sorted, and non-Pro callers get a pro_required response plus the Anywhere page URL. It does not cover rate limits, pagination of the limit, or error behavior beyond the Pro gate, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and price-sorting, then adds the caching caveat and Pro gating. The last two sentences slightly overlap (Pro limitation restated, then the free alternative), but every sentence carries useful routing or constraint information.

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 14-parameter, no-annotation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral surprises (cached data, Pro gate, price sorting, sibling fallback). It could say more about the shape/contents of the returned weekend list, but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional month filter (yyyy-mm) and cross-references weekend_prices for filter semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: cheapest weekends from one origin across every destination that has a calendar under the given filters, sorted by price. It explicitly contrasts with weekend_prices (one route at a time) and notes it reads priced data rather than searching all destinations, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings immediately.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use weekend_prices for a single pair, this tool for the 'Anywhere' view; and notes a destination absent from results can be priced with one weekend_prices call. It also states the Pro prerequisite and the pro_required fallback behavior, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the key behavioral trait that results are limited to origins with cached priced calendars and that counts reflect priced destinations. It does not cover cache staleness/refresh behavior or whether the list is exhaustive, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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, each earning its place: return shape first, then the routing guidance to each sibling. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

No parameters, no output schema, no annotations — the description must and does explain both the returned content (origins plus per-origin counts) and how it relates to the sibling tools, which is everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Returns the departure airports (IATA)') plus precise scope ('that have at least one priced weekend calendar') and the returned payload ('count of priced destinations per origin'). An agent can distinguish this from both siblings without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: 'Start here to learn what cheapest_weekends can answer at once' names the primary use case, and 'weekend_prices works for any airport pair and searches live when needed' supplies the fallback condition when an origin is not listed. Both alternatives and their selecting conditions are stated rather than inferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the caching model (cached answers return instantly, uncached weekends are searched live), concrete latency (10-40 s, at most ~55 s), partial-failure handling (the answer lists which weekends remain open and instructs a retry), and the Pro-cookie auth requirement. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before committing to a slow call.

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?

It is front-loaded with the return content and coverage window, then latency, then failure behavior, then the free/Pro boundary. Four dense sentences with minimal waste, though the free/Pro restatement partially duplicates what the schema already says per field.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (per-weekend cheapest price + as_of), the caching and live-search semantics, expected duration, degraded-response behavior, and the authorization tiers. There is little an agent would need before invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the per-field meanings and defaults are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by synthesizing the free-tier policy in one place (fri-sun, economy, any stops, any passenger mix, no time window) and naming the full filter surface, which helps the agent reason about the parameter set holistically.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the next 47 weekends (328 days) for one origin-destination pair, returning the cheapest round-trip price per weekend plus an as_of observation time. That is far better than restating the title. It never mentions or contrasts with the sibling cheapest_weekends, so the agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to pick.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it is the per-route weekend price feed and that non-default filters need a Pro cookie, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-cheapest_weekends guidance and no exclusion conditions. The free/Pro split is about authorization, not about tool selection.

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