Akkilahdot travel search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about NDC compatibility and the unique charter inventory, but does not disclose operational details such as response format, rate limits, or search completeness behavior.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function, adds differentiating inventory context, and closes with the expected outcome of finding the best available flight deals.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and data-source differentiator but does not explain result structure, pagination, or what constitutes a valid minimal query. The schema covers parameters well, but the description alone does not fully equip an agent to understand all behavior of a complex search 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond a generic reference to 'search criteria', which is appropriate for the baseline but provides no additional semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a flight search API for flights only from Finland. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_holidays by emphasizing 'vain lennot' (flights only) and by highlighting charter inventory not available on other travel search engines.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for flights, especially charter flight seats not found on mainstream search engines. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state 'use search_holidays for holiday packages', but the 'vain lennot' phrasing strongly implies the boundary.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about database scope and covered tour operators and says it returns 'parhaat tarjoukset', but it does not disclose response format, pagination, ranking semantics, or other behavioral details. It is consistent with annotations, but adds only modest 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 only three sentences, but the first and third sentences largely restate the same package-search idea, and the second is partly promotional ('suurimmasta ja kattavimmasta'). It is not bloated, but not every sentence adds distinct value; a single sharper sentence would have been more efficient.

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 37 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable mental model but does not explicitly state the response is a list of matching offers or mention default result behavior like limit=1. The word 'tarjoukset' and the extensive fields parameter imply the output, so it is adequate, but there are clear gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and every parameter already has a Finnish description, example, and often enums/defaults. The description only says 'hakukriteerien perusteella' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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 identifies the resource and action: 'Etsi parhaat saatavilla olevat pakettimatkat Suomesta hakukriteerien perusteella' and 'API hakuun... pakettimatkojen tarjouksista'. This makes it distinct from the sibling search_flights by domain. It does not explicitly name the sibling or say 'for flights use search_flights', so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: finding package holiday offers from major Finnish tour operators such as Tjäreborg, TUI, Apollo, Nazar, and Ticket. This implies package-holiday search rather than flight-only search, but it never explicitly states exclusions or points to search_flights, so it is clear without being fully explicit.

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