EU261 Flight Compensation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a non-destructive check/computation, but doesn't specify edge cases, return format, or any conditions that might cause the tool to behave differently (e.g., missing carrier_country).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject, with no redundant wording.

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 tool appears simple but has 4 params and no output schema. The description doesn't explain the return structure (e.g., whether it returns both eligibility and amount) or the role of optional 'carrier_country', leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description needn't add param details. It doesn't, but that's acceptable under the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('flight qualifies for EU261 delay compensation'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'compute_ev' or 'distance' which handle unrelated calculations.

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 implies usage for EU261 eligibility checks but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is a direct alternative, so the guidance is limited to the implied context.

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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric value, currency), whether it performs calculations only, or any assumptions or side effects. This is a significant gap for a computation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the expected value is calculated. It only mentions 'net cost after compensation probability' without elaborating on the output format, units, or edge cases. This is insufficient for a computational tool with 4 parameters.

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 each parameter. The description adds a high-level link between routing_type and 'compensation probability' but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter explanations.

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 'Compute EU261 expected value for a trip: net cost after compensation probability' clearly states the verb (compute), the resource (EU261 expected value), and specifies the output concept (net cost after compensation probability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_eligibility and distance by focusing on expected value calculation.

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 implies usage when an EU261 expected value is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_eligibility. There is no direct guidance on exclusions or alternative tools, though the purpose itself communicates a clear use case.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates distance and a compensation band, implying a read-only computation. However, it does not disclose output format, units, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple calculator, 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose and output details. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 tool is simple with two well-described parameters and no output schema. The description mentions the output includes distance and EU261 compensation band, but lacks details on units, return structure, or edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is minimally complete but leaves some gaps for an agent invoking the 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage with 'Origin IATA' and 'Destination IATA' for the two parameters. The tool description adds the contextual phrase 'between two airports', which reinforces the meaning but doesn't go beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'calculate' and clearly defines the resource: great-circle distance between two airports. It also mentions the EU261 compensation band, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_eligibility or compute_ev. This is a precise and differentiating purpose statement.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a distance calculation between airports is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (e.g., check_eligibility, compute_ev) suggest different purposes, so the context is clear enough. No explicit guidance is missing for a reasonably straightforward tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what data is returned, whether it is a read-only operation, any limitations, or side effects. The description merely restates the tool's function without adding behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and contains no fluff.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description needs to compensate by explaining return values or limitations, but it does not. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to guess about response format or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool meant to retrieve stored history.

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 full coverage of the single parameter 'route' with a clear example. The description adds only the phrase 'for a route', which does not enhance the semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter meaning.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('stored price history') for a given route. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like record_price, which is the write counterpart, and other unrelated tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is from the tool name itself, which is insufficient for nuanced decision-making.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope (all known, EU status) and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. While it doesn't detail return format or edge cases, it is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word provides value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function. It could mention the output format, but the simplicity of the task makes this sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to provide parameter context, hence a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the action (List), resource (airports), and scope (all known with EU status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_eligibility or distance, which have different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage when airport listings are needed, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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 carries the transparency burden. It discloses the side effect of building price history in DO state, but does not mention idempotency, duplicate handling, or any constraints. The effect is clear but limited in depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and context. No wasted words.

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 write tool with no output schema and descriptive schema, the description covers the core purpose and persistence effect. It could mention duplicate handling or link more explicitly to get_price_history, but the basic context is sufficient.

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 60%, with route, source, and routing described. The missing descriptions for carrier and fare_eur are self-explanatory from names. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the gaps are minor.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('fare observation'), clearly stating the tool's purpose of recording price data for trend tracking. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_price_history, which reads price history.

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 implies the tool is used to record a fare observation when you have a price to log, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions is given.

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