easygroupflights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately states the tool is read-only ('it answers without submitting anything'), which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention response format or potential errors, but for an informational tool this is sufficient.

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, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence lists content topics, the second gives usage context. No redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its read-only nature. Since there is no output schema, the description indirectly indicates the return will be informational text. The market parameter is self-explanatory from the schema, and the tool's simplicity means the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides a complete description for the single 'market' parameter, including its enum and default value. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage (100%).

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 that the tool provides information about easygroupflights, including its purpose, target audience, group fare differences, and post-quote process. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by noting it 'answers without submitting anything,' making it unambiguous that this is an informational tool.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: 'when a traveller asks whether their trip qualifies, what it costs, how long a quote takes, or how group booking works.' It also contrasts with action siblings by stating it does not submit anything, implying use this for questions and the other tools for actions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool does not return a price, that a human agent handles the enquiry by email within ~2 hours (up to 24 for complex trips), that seats are held together, and that names can be supplied later. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's asynchronous, human-mediated 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 relatively long but every sentence carries high-value information: what the tool does, what it does not do, expected response time, savings, booking benefits, required inputs, and the sibling alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

This is a complex 20-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the essential operational context: outcome is via email, not an immediate price; timeline; pricing benefits; and when to use a sibling tool. Nothing critical an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful workflow context around email and phone being needed for the agent to reply, but it does not materially expand the semantics of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it requests a quote for a group of 10 or more travellers flying together. It also distinguishes itself by explaining that this tool does NOT return a price and by naming the sibling alternative, search_flights, for smaller groups.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: group of 10 or more, negotiated group fares. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'For 9 travellers or fewer, use search_flights instead.' The instruction to collect email and phone before calling further helps the agent invoke it correctly.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns flight options with prices, carriers, stops, and a direct booking link, and that prices are quoted per person. It implies a read-only search operation through the verb 'Search' but does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The disclosed return format and per-person pricing are useful behavioral details beyond what the schema offers.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by output details and the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable for an agent.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, scope, output contents, per-person pricing, and the group-threshold alternative. Given the high schema coverage and lack of an output schema, it is largely complete. Minor gaps remain: it does not specify the currency for prices or what happens when no flights are found, but these are secondary for a search tool.

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 schema already documents every parameter (origin, destination, departureDate, returnDate, passengers) with clear descriptions including IATA format and the group limit. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only restates the group cutoff already present in the passengers schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Search live, bookable fares') and immediately scopes it to 'a party of 9 travellers or fewer' and 'ordinary tickets sold through public inventory'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling request_group_quote by naming the alternative and the condition that triggers it, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'for a party of 9 travellers or fewer' and the negative case 'For 10 or more travellers this tool is the wrong one' plus the direct alternative 'use request_group_quote instead'. No ambiguity remains about when to pick this tool over its sibling.

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 takes on the safety burden and handles it well: it warns that 'This sends a real email' and instructs confirmation, flagging the side effect and requiring consent. It does not cover auth, retries, or failure modes, but the key externally visible behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences with each earning its place: the action, the exact id/email requirements, and the confirmation warning. The most important operational constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 10-parameter side-effecting tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the prerequisite search, required id provenance, email acquisition, and confirmation step. The schema documents the remaining parameter semantics, so nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful guidance by requiring the ids 'exactly as search_flights reported them' and telling the agent to ask for the email and never invent one. That clarifies the provenance and handling of the most safety-critical parameters.

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: 'Email one of the options returned by search_flights to the traveller as a formal offer.' It names the source of the data and the purpose, which makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from search_flights and request_group_quote.

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?

It gives clear operating context: the tool is used after search_flights, the ids must be copied exactly, the email must be obtained first and not invented, and the traveller must confirm before a real email is sent. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling alternative, but the context is strong enough to route the agent correctly.

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