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

This is the strongest part of the description. It explicitly states non-obvious behavior: the requested cabin is preserved and alternate-cabin offers are labeled, children require real ages, a search snapshot is stored, provider search budget is spent, and no seats are held. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/open-world safety, so this adds genuine operational context beyond structured data.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then caveats, then side effects. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of obvious schema details.

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 search tool with no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers the key behavioral quirks (cabin policy, budget spend, snapshot storage, no seat hold). It could be more complete by mentioning output availability or retry semantics with request_key, but it is solid overall.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies a few semantics: "Children need real ages" and the cabin-preservation rule. Nested legs and passengers structure remain largely schema-documented, and there is no explanation of request_key semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and partial description assistance.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: "Searches flights for exact legs, passengers and cabin." This is clearer than a bare tautology and names the scope, but it does not differentiate from sibling search_* tools like anywayr_search_hotels, which is essentially self-evident from the domain.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as anywayr_prepare_checkout or anywayr_quote_booking. The description implies it is a search step but never says "call this before X" or "use this to get offer references."

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