interactive_seat_finderSeat finder that recommends the best seats on a flight and renders an interactive seatmap. Good default when the user wants help finding a seat but hasn't specified preferences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flight_date | No | Optional flight date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| flight_number | Yes | Flight number, e.g. 'QF1', 'AA716' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool renders an interactive seatmap rather than just returning data, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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, no fluff. The core function is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-param read-only tool, the definition is complete: it says what it does, what it outputs at a high level (interactive seatmap), and when to choose it. No output schema exists, but 'renders an interactive seatmap' gives enough return-shape context for an agent.
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 flight_number and flight_date. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
Clearly states what the tool does: recommends best seats on a flight and renders an interactive seatmap. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_seatmap or find_best_seats via the interactive rendering and the explicit 'default when no preferences' positioning.
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?
Tells the agent when to use it: as the good default when the user wants seat help but hasn't specified preferences. It doesn't name a specific alternative or state when-not to use it, but the 'default when no preferences' phrasing implies a clear selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Alerts, search, and reviews are clearly distinct, but find_best_seats, interactive_seat_finder, get_seat_info, and get_seatmap all render interactive seatmaps and overlap in purpose. find_best_seats and interactive_seat_finder are especially hard to distinguish despite minor differences in preferences.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like create_seat_alert, list_seat_alerts, get_seat_reviews, and search_flight. The main deviations are interactive_seat_finder, which uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, and get_seatmap as a compound rather than get_seat_map.
10 tools is a reasonable size for a flight seatmap server covering seat maps, search, alerts, reviews, and discovery. The count is slightly less clean because interactive_seat_finder largely duplicates find_best_seats, but the overall scope is still manageable.
The core workflow of searching flights, viewing seatmaps, inspecting seats, finding best seats, and managing seat alerts is well covered. Minor gaps include no way to update a seat alert and no way to submit or edit seat reviews, but these are workable limitations.