AirTreks MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a non-destructive query. The description adds behavioral context (segmentation, carrier recommendations, handling mixed carriers and LCCs) without contradiction. It could mention output format but is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose and usage scenarios well. Lacks description of return/output format, but given the complexity and that it's a planning tool, the context is adequate.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the tool's purpose but does not add additional detail about parameter values or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool breaks a complex multi-city itinerary into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations. It specifies the resource (custom segmented route) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on complex routes that don't fit alliance fare rules.

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?

Description explicitly says to use for routes with 4+ stops, backtracking, or region combinations that alliance fares can't cover. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer direct alternatives to sibling tools.

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 indicate read-only, consistent with 'Recommend'. Description adds behavioral detail on what it considers (stop count, direction, backtracking) beyond the 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?

Two sentences: first sentence states primary purpose, second adds key details. Front-loaded and efficient with no fluff.

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 read-only recommendation tool with clear parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input considerations and purpose. Could mention return type but not required.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description maps parameters to considerations (cities -> stop count, isOneDirection -> direction, includeBacktracking -> backtracking), adding 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?

Clear verb 'Recommend' and resource 'fare product type' with specific examples (RTW, Circle Pacific, etc.). Distinct from 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?

Lists consideration factors (stop count, direction, backtracking) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool nor mention alternatives among siblings.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: identifies dead legs, suggests fixes, shows proven carrier combinations. No contradiction.

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 clearly structured: main purpose, specific outputs, and usage contexts. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description explains what the tool returns (dead legs, fixes, carriers) and when to use it. Lacks return format details but is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context about alliance fares but does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check the best connection between two airports' and elaborates with specific features (dead legs, hub routing fixes, carrier combinations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like route_suggest and plan_route by focusing on alliance-specific constraints and hub optimization.

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 identifies specific routing contexts ('transpacific, kangaroo, intra-Asia') but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among sibling tools like custom_route_build or fare_product_match.

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, so description adds value by detailing behavioral traits such as automatic evaluation of alliance feasibility, backtracking analysis, and carrier selection. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then details. Efficient and no fluff, though slightly longer than the calibration's 2-sentence example.

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 complexity (multiple strategies, alliances, carriers) and lack of output schema, the description could be more complete. It says 'recommends the best approach' but does not describe return format or mention error/edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no further detail about individual parameters; it only provides overall context about the cities input and the tool's automatic reasoning.

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?

Description clearly states it is the primary entry point for multi-city trips, with specific verb 'plan' and resource 'multi-city route'. It distinguishes from siblings by implying it handles all strategies (RTW, custom) automatically, making it the comprehensive choice.

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 states 'primary entry point for any multi-city trip', giving clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings like custom_route_build or route_validate.

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 indicate read-only. The description adds that it returns up to 3 templates with bookability ratings, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations but not extensive details like error handling or data freshness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Covers main purpose and return format but omits details about empty results, error handling, or examples. Given no output schema, more detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions regions, direction, and alliance but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema property descriptions.

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 it suggests multi-stop flight routings based on input criteria and returns templates with ratings. It implies use for inspiration but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like plan_route or custom_route_build.

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 phrase 'Great for trip planning inspiration' suggests a use case but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies that the tool checks alliance carrier rules, identifies dead legs, warns about poison carriers, and estimates bookability. These details are essential for an agent to understand the tool's internal logic and side effects, all of which align with the read-only nature.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second adds detail and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear function with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's internal checks and suggests its place in the workflow, but given no output schema, it does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, score, report). This is a minor gap; otherwise, it is well-rounded for a validation 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters (cities, alliance, carriers). The description does not add new semantic details; e.g., it mentions 'leg' for carriers but schema already says 'for each leg.' The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate further.

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 verb ('Validate') and resource ('multi-city flight routing'), and enumerates specific checks (alliance carrier rules, dead legs, poison carriers, bookability). This distinguishes it from siblings like custom_route_build or route_suggest, which generate or propose routes rather than check feasibility.

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 advises using this tool 'before building an itinerary to catch routing problems early,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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