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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on what the annotations cannot convey: the 5-result cap, the returned fields, and the important edge case that price:null legs are included even when max_price is set and are not confirmed within the cap. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the search dimensions, then the return shape, then the domain and edge-case explanation. Every sentence carries information, though the null-price caveat appears twice (description and schema) and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (route, departure time, price, aircraft type, seats, booking link) and the semantics of empty legs and null prices. An agent has what it needs to search and interpret results, though it does not clarify whether all parameters are optional or how the empty result set is surfaced.

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 each parameter is already documented with format examples and the max_price null-price nuance. The description largely restates the schema's own parameter notes (origin, destination, dates, passengers, max_price), so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Search) plus resource (empty leg flights) and enumerates the search dimensions. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_flight and request_booking, which are lookup and mutation tools respectively.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to search discounted private jet availability on specific routes. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as get_flight or get_charter_estimate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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