flightoracle

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns ('nearby airports and common codes'), indicating a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose behavior when the optional 'city' parameter is omitted (required params: 0), potential rate limits, or whether it prefers IATA over ICAO codes. This is a moderate gap for a simple lookup tool.

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: 'Find airport IATA codes for a city.' then 'Returns nearby airports and common codes.' Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information or repetitive phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and return type. However, it leaves ambiguity about the optional 'city' parameter—what happens if no city is provided? It also does not describe the format of the returned codes. These gaps prevent a higher score, though the overall simplicity keeps it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with 'city' clearly described with examples. The tool description adds nothing semantically new beyond reiterating 'for a city'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional format details or edge-case handling.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('airport IATA codes') with a scope ('for a city'). It also mentions the output includes nearby airports and common codes, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like flight_search and cheapest_flights, which deal with flights rather than airport codes.

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 provides clear context: it is for looking up airport IATA codes by city. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 'when not to use', the sibling tool names (e.g., flight_search, price_calendar) make it obvious that this tool is specifically for airport code lookup, not flight search. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are price-sorted and include dates, airlines, and price insights, but it does not mention parameter dependencies (e.g., needing at least one of departure/arrival) or potential error conditions, which are relevant for a tool with zero required parameters.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise summary of return content. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The description covers the output shape but leaves critical gaps: all parameters are optional in the schema, yet the description does not clarify if any are needed or how defaults work. There is no guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., departure/arrival requirements), and sibling differentiation is absent. Without an output schema or annotations, this is insufficient for full 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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters like month format or IATA codes, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find the cheapest flights across a full month.' This specifies the action (find cheapest flights), the resource (flights), and the scope (full month), and it distinguishes from siblings like flight_search or one_way_search by emphasizing month-wide, price-optimized search.

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 implies usage for month-wide cheapest-flight searches but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It does not name alternatives like flight_search or price_calendar, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It lists return fields such as prices and carbon emissions, but does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or operational caveats. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, yet no explicit safety or side-effect information is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and resource, then lists key return fields. It is concise and free of redundant information.

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 a moderately complex schema (9 optional parameters) and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose and return values. It falls short only in not addressing sibling-tool differentiation or potential behavioral caveats, making it mostly complete for basic invocation.

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 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their syntax and meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, such as how stops or travel_class affect results. 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 the tool's action ('Search') and resource ('round-trip or one-way flights between airports'), and lists what it returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like one_way_search or multi_city, which also search flights.

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 implies the tool is for general flight searches, covering both round-trip and one-way options. It provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer when to choose this tool over specialized 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the types of information returned (status, connectivity, features) and does not state side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at six words, which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a proper sentence, which sacrifices clarity and structure. It reads more like a label than an explanatory description.

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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description lists the primary outputs (server status, API connectivity, supported features) which provides a baseline understanding. However, it lacks detail on the format, possible values, or how to interpret the results. It is minimally adequate but not 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because there are none to document. The schema is empty and fully covers the parameter surface.

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 is a fragment listing 'Server status, API connectivity, supported features.' It lacks an explicit verb to state what the tool does, though the subject matter implies a health-check function. It distinguishes from the flight-search sibling tools by topic, but the purpose is vague without an action verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The sibling names (e.g., flight_search) suggest a flight-related API context, but the description itself does not mention when a caller should run a health check. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure (per-leg pricing and total cost range), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is a notable gap given the absence of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity of a multi-city pricing tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, the leg-count constraint, and the nature of the return value. It does not fully elaborate on edge cases or failure modes, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the 'min 2' constraint for legs is already in the schema, and the return value mention is tool-level rather than parameter-specific.

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 the specific verb 'Price' with the resource 'multi-city route' and immediately clarifies the scope with '2+ legs'. It explicitly states the tool returns per-leg pricing and total cost range, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like one_way_search or route_compare.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for multi-city routes with 2 or more legs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the '2+ legs' condition provides clear context that this is not for single-leg or simple round-trip queries.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search one-way flights with all filters' and gives no information about return format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not verbose or wasteful, though it lacks structure and additional context. For a tool with 8 parameters, one sentence is appropriately brief but could benefit from more organization.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states a general search capability without explaining what 'all filters' means, how results are returned, or any defaults. This is incomplete for a complex search 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate given the high schema coverage.

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 searches for one-way flights, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'flight_search' or 'cheapest_flights', so it loses some points on sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as multi_city or price_calendar. The description implies one-way searches but does not explicitly state exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a calendar and indicates it finds the cheapest week, but it does not disclose output format, data source, whether it requires both departure and arrival, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core value proposition. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain what the calendar output looks like, how weeks are displayed, or any required fields. It is too sparse to be fully usable without additional context or examples.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including types and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter sufficiently.

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 'Weekly price calendar for a route. Find the cheapest week to fly' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing a weekly price overview to help find the cheapest travel week. It names a specific resource (price calendar) and action (find), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'cheapest_flights' or 'route_compare'.

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 implies usage for comparing prices across weeks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It offers enough context to infer a 'when to use' but lacks direct comparison with 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It uses read-oriented verbs ('Compare', 'Shows') and describes the output (cheapest per airline, stops, duration), but it does not disclose potential quirks, permissions, or confirm read-only behavior explicitly. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. No fluff 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?

The description is minimal and does not explain that departure and arrival IATA codes are logically required despite schema marking all params optional. With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify invocation expectations (e.g., need for date and route codes). It also does not differentiate usage from sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond saying it shows 'cheapest per airline, stops, duration', which is not tied to specific parameters. 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 the tool compares flight prices by airline for a route, which distinguishes it from siblings like cheapest_flights and flight_search. The verb 'Compare' and specific resource 'flight prices by airline' make the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when one needs per-airline price comparisons, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implied.

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