hub_checkCheck the best connection between two airports. Identifies dead legs (routes that fail on alliance fares), suggests hub routing fixes, and shows proven carrier combinations. Essential for transpacific, kangaroo, and intra-Asia routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination IATA airport code (e.g. 'JFK') | |
| from | Yes | Origin IATA airport code (e.g. 'SYD') | |
| alliance | No | Preferred alliance: 'star' or 'oneworld' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by using read-only language like 'identifies,' 'suggests,' and 'shows.' It adds meaningful behavioral detail about dead legs, alliance-fare failures, and carrier combinations, going beyond the structured annotation 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds valuable detail about what it identifies/suggests/shows, and the third tells when it is essential. No filler or 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?
Considering the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what the tool will surface: best connections, dead legs, hub fixes, and carrier combinations. It could be more explicit about the output format or how 'best' is determined, but it is generally complete enough for an agent to select 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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., IATA codes, alliance options). The description adds general context about alliance fares and routing but does not materially deepen the understanding of the individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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: 'Check the best connection between two airports' and specifies distinctive outputs like dead legs, hub routing fixes, and proven carrier combinations. It is specific about verb and resource, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like route_suggest or plan_route.
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 says the tool is 'essential for transpacific, kangaroo, and intra-Asia routing,' which provides useful context for when to use it. It does not explain when not to use it or name alternatives from the sibling list, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap in the routing/planning space—plan_route, custom_route_build, route_validate, route_suggest, and hub_check all touch alliance feasibility, dead legs, and carrier selection. The descriptions do provide usage cues, but an agent could still struggle to pick the right one for a given step.
Most tools follow a clear object-plus-action pattern like route_estimate, route_suggest, fare_product_match, and custom_route_build. plan_route inverts the pattern and itinerary_quote_status is a noun phrase rather than an action, but the overall style is mostly consistent and readable.
Eleven tools is a reasonable scope for a multi-city flight planning domain that spans routing, validation, estimates, quotes, and consultant handoff. The count is not excessive, though some consolidation among the overlapping planning tools would tighten the set.
The toolset covers the main journey from trip idea and routing suggestion through validation, fare product matching, live quoting, quote status polling, and human consultant submission. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit fare rule detail retrieval or date-flexible search—but the core workflow is coherent and has no dead ends.