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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful context an agent could not get from the schema — live data source, party-based price calculation, and automatic API-key authentication via the x-api-key header — but it says nothing about whether the operation is side-effect free, rate limits, or what happens with invalid/unavailable routes.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The one-way instruction is somewhat redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back — it hints at availability plus party pricing but does not describe the response shape, error conditions, or whether results are bookable directly. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for interpretation.

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 every parameter (including defaults, IATA format, and the one-way rule for return_date) is already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter guidance, the empty-return_date rule, merely restates the return_date field description, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Searches live Drukair flight availability and calculates flight pricing for the party'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling booking/retrieval tools like create_booking and get_itinerary. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names a sibling or states that it must precede booking.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule ('Leave return_date empty for one-way') and a prerequisite (valid Druk Asia API key), but gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings or on preconditions such as needing an itinerary or member before booking. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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