Mubboo Flights Search

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: it returns suggestions rather than routes, and it directs the agent to disambiguate with the traveler when multiple matches occur. It does not mention result caps or index scope (local vs global), which holds it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope boundary, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return nature (suggestions, not routes) and the multi-match handling an agent needs to act correctly. The only gap is the undocumented `language` parameter, a minor omission against the rest of the coverage.

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 0% for 2 parameters, so the schema carries none of the meaning. The description usefully defines what `query` accepts (place name or IATA code), but says nothing about the `language` parameter or its default/format, leaving half the input undocumented.

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) against a specific resource (Mubboo's local airport and city index) and the lookup keys (name or IATA code). The explicit 'not routes or flight availability' clause separates it from prepare_flight_search without needing to open either schema.

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?

It gives one clear when-condition (ask the traveler to choose when several places match) and one exclusion (not routes or flight availability), but never states when to reach for this versus get_service_info or prepare_flight_search. The resolution step before flight search is implied rather than stated.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it defines the content returned and warns that website capabilities are distinct from MCP tool capabilities, which prevents misinterpretation of results.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary content list is front-loaded. The enumerated list is slightly comma-ambiguous ('support and affiliate disclosure'), but overall it is tight and appropriately sized.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description tells the agent what content to expect on return. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when in a workflow to call it versus the search siblings.

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 takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, and none is needed.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the resource contents: MCP support, website travel products, support, and affiliate disclosure. It is clear this is a service/metadata lookup, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the flight-search siblings by naming them.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a discovery/capability-check call rather than a flight search, but there is no explicit 'call this first' or 'do not use when' guidance. The note that website capabilities are separate from MCP tool capabilities hints at interpretation but does not state when to invoke it.

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 mark this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that no supplier request occurs until the traveler opens the link and that no prices, tickets or reservations are returned. That prevents an agent from misreading this as a booking or pricing 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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the caveats. Every clause carries distinct information about behavior or parameter meaning, with no repetition of the schema.

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 10-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics and side-effect profile. It does not say what the returned link object looks like or how validation failures surface, leaving a small gap an agent would notice on first call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers: 'comfort' maps to premium economy, round trips need outbound plus reversed inbound segments, childAges must have one entry per child, and infants are lap infants. It leaves market/language/currency semantics to their regex patterns, which is a minor shortfall.

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 and artifact: validate travel details and build a Mubboo link to KAYAK search. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings find_airports and get_service_info, which serve unrelated needs. No ambiguity about what is produced.

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 context (an agent preparing a search link for a traveler) and clarifies that no supplier request fires until the link is opened, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites must hold. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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