itinerary_quote_statusFetch the result of an itinerary_quote using the quoteReference it returned. Returns status 'pending' with how long to wait, or the finished options. Costs nothing and does no searching, so poll it rather than starting a second quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteReference | Yes | The quoteReference returned by itinerary_quote. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost (nothing) and side-effect (does no searching) beyond the readOnly annotation. Also describes return behavior: status 'pending' with wait time or finished options, providing a clear picture of what happens on invocation.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. All key information is included: operation, input, return type, cost, and usage tip. Structure is efficient and clear.
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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and its cost behavior. It does not need to explain error handling or more complex aspects for a straightforward status-check operation.
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 fully describes the quoteReference parameter as the one returned by itinerary_quote; the description only reiterates this without adding new meaning. No additional parameter semantics are provided.
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?
Clearly states it fetches the result of an itinerary_quote using the quoteReference, distinguishing it from the creation tool (itinerary_quote) and other quote-related tools. The verb 'Fetch' and specific resource 'result of an itinerary_quote' are explicit.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool for polling rather than starting a second quote, with the rationale that it costs nothing and does no searching. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.