AwardSecrets Award Availability

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 so: it discloses the seats-count caveat (indicator, not a bookable count or reservation), the meaning of an empty result, volatility/point-in-time nature of data, the API-key and monthly-allowance failure modes, and a no-fabrication directive. This is unusually complete for an unannotated 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?

Well front-loaded (purpose first, then constraints, then result interpretation) and bulleted so the literalness rules are scannable. Minor redundancy: 'not a reservation' appears twice in the interpretation block, and the cabin enumeration repeats the schema enum.

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 output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (flights with cabin and seat count) and how to read each field. With 6 parameters, 4 required, and no nested objects, all the agent needs to call and interpret the tool correctly is 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine negative constraints the schema lacks: origin/destination are not a city, list, or region; airline is not an alliance or loyalty programme; date is not a range or month. The carrier-code example (VS, CX, NH) duplicates the schema, so it is not fully additive.

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 (Query), a specific resource (AwardSecrets data set for award seat availability), and an exact scope (ONE route, ONE date, ONE airline) plus what is returned (flights with cabin and seat count). An agent can tell instantly what this does and how narrow it is, and there are no siblings to disambiguate against.

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 instructs how to cover multiple values ('CALL THIS TOOL ONCE PER COMBINATION and combine the results yourself') and sets expectations about empty results ('an empty result for one date says nothing about another — checking several dates is normal and expected'). It also tells the agent what to do on auth failure (point at the membership URL) and on quota exhaustion (state the reset time).

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