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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool routes automatically and returns a combined answer, but it does not mention potential side effects, whether it only performs read-only actions, or any limitations (e.g., not booking directly). This is adequate but not rich.

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 plus an example convey the entire purpose and usage. No redundant text, efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, this description is largely complete. It gives the behavioral model, an example, and implies coverage across multiple travel domains. Missing details about error handling or latency are minor for an agent 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' should be a natural-language travel question and provides a concrete example ('Cheapest flights from Zurich to Rome next week, and do I need a visa?'), adding meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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 it is a natural-language travel agent that routes to the right tools and returns a combined answer. This distinguishes it from the many specialized sibling tools (e.g., skiplagged_sk_flights_search, visa_check) by framing it as an orchestrator.

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 tells users to ask a travel question in natural language, implying this tool is the entry point when you don't know which specific tool to call. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the routing behavior and example effectively convey the intended usage.

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