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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavior: it aggregates from 'live flight inventory data', explains that UI text and responses are localized based on the `locale` parameter, and details currency defaulting. This enriches the agent's understanding of response language and data freshness.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then instructions. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes (examples, language/currency rules). No wasted words, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core use case, language/currency behavior, and enough context for agent selection. It doesn't detail response structure, but the concept of 'popular destinations with prices' is intuitive and the schema handles parameter specifics.

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 75%, and the description adds crucial semantic context for locale and currency, including explicit mappings (tr→TRY, en→USD, etc.) and the instruction that the LLM MUST infer the language. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Tripuck's Explore service — most popular destinations with current prices from a given origin city' and explicitly says to use it for 'inspiration-style queries where the destination is unknown'. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_flights, which would be for known destinations.

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 usage context: 'Use for inspiration-style queries where the destination is unknown' with multiple example queries. It implies not to use when the destination is known, but does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when-not' clarity.

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