Mubboo Flights Search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: multiple suggestions may match and the caller must pick one, and results are location identifiers rather than availability. No return format or max-result behavior is described, but the added context is real.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the scoping caveat. The branding phrase ('for your trip using Mubboo Flights') is the only mild 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-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, disambiguation behavior, and the boundary with flight availability. Only the 'language' parameter and result shape remain unaddressed.

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 must carry the load. It clarifies that 'query' accepts either a place name or an IATA code, which is valuable, but says nothing about the 'language' parameter or the accepted input constraints.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Find airports and city codes') with a clear scope distinction: results identify locations and flight availability is checked separately, which implicitly separates it from prepare_flight_search. An agent can place this tool without opening the 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?

Gives concrete usage context: search by place name or IATA code, and disambiguate when several suggestions match. It also implies the boundary with the flight-search flow, but never names the sibling tools or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a rough inventory of returned content areas (connection details, commercial information); it says nothing about size, format, or freshness of that information. Some added context, but not much beyond annotations.

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 sentences, but the third ('The website also offers hotels, car rentals, tours and travel research') is off-topic marketing filler that dilutes rather than informs. The core enumeration in the first two sentences is reasonably front-loaded.

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, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description needs to convey what comes back, and it only gestures at this ('services, available MCP tools, travel product links and support, connection details and commercial information'). It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about the shape and scope of the response.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 does state that this tool surfaces Mubboo Flights service metadata (services, MCP tools, product links, support, connection and commercial details), so the resource is roughly identifiable. However, 'Explore' is a soft verb, the field list is a diffuse grab-bag, and the closing sentence about hotels/car rentals/tours is unrelated to what the tool actually returns. Nothing distinguishes it from find_airports or prepare_flight_search.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the sibling tools, no precondition (e.g. 'call this first to discover available capabilities'), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/metadata endpoint purely from the name.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. Description adds meaningful behavior: validation scope, that a link (not quote/reservation) is returned, and domain rules for round trips, cabin 'comfort', childAges and lap infants.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose first, then return behavior, then key constraints. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information without repetition.

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?

No output schema, but description states the return is a search link and not quotes/reservations. With 10 required params and no schema descriptions, it covers the important domain semantics but leaves some parameter specifics (e.g., market, exact counts) to the schema's patterns and bounds.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies tripType, segments rule, comfort=premium economy, and child/infant rules, but omits meaning for market, language/currency beyond 'validate', and adult/child count limits.

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 'prepare' and resource 'personalized Mubboo Flights search' plus supported trip types. It is clearly distinct from find_airports and get_service_info in function, though it does not name or contrast those siblings.

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?

Explains the context: returns a link for the traveler to compare options and explicitly excludes quotes/reservations. It does not name alternative tools or specify when another sibling should be used instead.

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