I Know The Pilot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. It only states the output content (routes and airlines), which is return-value information rather than behavioral 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and key output details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (one parameter), good schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It could have explicitly mentioned the deal_id requirement, but the schema covers that, so the overall context is adequate.

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 fully documents the single deal_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add information about the parameter, but the schema is sufficient. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('specific flight deal') with useful detail ('full details including routes and airlines'). It is clear and distinct enough from sibling tools like list_top_deals_from and search_deals, though it does not explicitly mention retrieval by deal ID.

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 'specific flight deal' implies this tool is for retrieving one deal rather than listing or searching, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. The intended usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior context: results are limited to 'currently active' deals and sorted by 'cheapest', which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand filtering and ordering 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?

The description is two sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second providing a practical example. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and it earns every word.

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 full parameter coverage in schema, an output schema present, and annotations describing safety, the description fully covers purpose, use case, and behavioral nuances. The example cements the tool's role, making it complete for its complexity.

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 both parameters are already well-documented in the schema (origin as Australian airport code, limit with range and default). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'cheapest currently active flight deals from a specific Australian airport', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_deal (specific deal) and search_deals (broader search). The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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 a clear use case with the example "what's cheap from Melbourne right now?", implying when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that deals are curated and not live inventory, plus the 'from Australia' scope, which sets expectations. This is comparable to baseline transparency, but does not go beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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 concise sentences, no redundant words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple: 3 optional parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately covers purpose, scope (Australia), nature (curated deals), and the non-live-inventory caveat, making it complete for the given complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments (limit range, max price in AUD, destination examples). The description's 'destination and/or price criteria' echoes existing schema info without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('curated flight deals from Australia'), and specifies it matches deals by destination and/or price. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_deal or list_top_deals_from, but the verb 'search' differentiates it sufficiently.

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: it is for curated exceptional fares, not live inventory search, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not name alternatives like get_deal for specific deal details, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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