AirTreks MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's a planning (non-destructive) operation. It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the output: 'individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations.' This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens, though it doesn't detail side effects or authorization requirements.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides value: purpose, context, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return value ('segments with carrier recommendations'). It covers when to use and the type of input. However, it could mention potential failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., valid IATA codes) for full 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., budget tier prioritizes LCCs or J-class) but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It generally aligns with the parameter descriptions without offering additional depth.

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 breaks complex multi-city itineraries into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations. It specifies the resource ('custom segmented route') and distinguishes from siblings by noting that it handles routes not covered by alliance fare rules, mixed carriers, LCCs, etc. The verb 'build' is specific and action-oriented.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for any route with 4+ stops, backtracking, or region combinations that alliance fares can't cover.' It implies when not to use (routes that fit alliance fare rules) and provides context on alternatives (alliance fares). The mention of 'AirTreks consultants build 90% of itineraries' reinforces its primary use case.

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 it as read-only. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the factors considered (stop count, direction, backtracking) and the output type (fare product type). 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and the factors it uses. It could mention the return format, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for three parameters. The description reinforces how these parameters are used (e.g., 'Considers stop count, direction, and backtracking'), adding context beyond the schema field 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 uses a clear verb ('recommend') and specifies the exact fare product types (RTW, Circle Pacific, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'custom_route_build' or 'route_validate'.

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 explains the tool's use case: matching fare products by considering stop count, direction, and backtracking. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context from sibling tool names aids differentiation.

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 by stating the tool identifies dead legs, suggests hub routing fixes, and shows proven carrier combinations, which aligns with read-only lookup/analysis. No contradictions; it provides useful traits 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 are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by specific features and use-case context. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Well-structured and concise.

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 relatively simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, features, and use cases adequately. It lacks details about the output format or error handling, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Destination IATA airport code'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter details in the description.

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 checks the best connection between two airports, lists specific features like identifying dead legs and suggesting hub routing fixes, and gives use cases (transpacific, kangaroo, intra-Asia routing). This is specific, uses a clear verb, and distinguishes from siblings that validate or suggest routes.

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 mentions it is essential for certain routing types (transpacific, kangaroo, intra-Asia), giving context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like custom_route_build or route_suggest. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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 the description adds rich behavioral context: direction detection, backtracking analysis, alliance feasibility, surface sectors, and carrier selection. It explains what the tool does internally, going well 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating purpose, a sentence on inputs and outputs, a list of capabilities, and a customer-centric closing. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity of multi-city route planning, the description covers the tool's scope well. It does not detail output format or error handling, but it implies a recommendation. For a planning tool with no output schema, this is largely sufficient.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that budget affects carrier selection and preferences influence behavior, and that cities drive the analysis. This provides additive 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?

The description clearly states it is the primary entry point for multi-city trips, automatically evaluating Star Alliance RTW, oneworld RTW, and custom mixed-carrier builds. It distinguishes itself from siblings like custom_route_build and route_suggest by handling all complexity automatically.

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 explicitly positions this as the primary entry point for multi-city trips, implying it should be used first. It covers a broad range of scenarios (alliance or custom) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like route_suggest 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's a read operation by stating 'Get suggested' and describing outputs. It also discloses the maximum number of results (up to 3) and includes 'bookability ratings', adding behavioral context 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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words and easy to scan.

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 suggestion tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (up to 3 templates with ratings) and key inputs. However, it lacks details on how to interpret bookability ratings or edge cases like no results, which could be useful.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond summarizing key inputs (regions, direction, alliance). Baseline of 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 the tool provides 'suggested multi-stop flight routings' with specific inputs (regions, direction, alliance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'custom_route_build' by highlighting it's for inspiration with 'proven routing templates'.

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 it's 'great for trip planning inspiration', implying use for early planning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'custom_route_build' for custom routes.

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, but the description adds specific behavioral information: checking alliance carrier rules, identifying dead legs, warning about poison carriers, and estimating bookability. This enriches the agent's understanding without 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?

The description is two sentences: the first efficiently states purpose and capabilities, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, specific checks, and when to use. It lacks details on return format or prerequisites but is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (cities as IATA codes, alliance as preferred, carriers as optional per leg). The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 the tool validates multi-city flight routings for feasibility, listing specific checks (alliance rules, dead legs, poison carriers, bookability). It distinguishes from sibling tools like custom_route_build and route_suggest by focusing on validation before building.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'before building an itinerary to catch routing problems early,' providing clear timing context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context of siblings and the directive 'use this before' suffices.

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