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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that results are normalized and limited to departing-leg offers — but omits pricing/currency behavior, result volume, or pagination, so it adds only modest context 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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, scope, and one alternative; it could note result volume or that return-leg offers come separately, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents each of the 9 parameters including requiredness, formats, and defaults. The description restates origin/destination IATA and date range but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns normalized Expedia Flights search results") and pins the scope to departing-leg offers for an origin/destination IATA pair and date range. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling expedia_properties_search, which handles Stays.

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?

Names an alternative (expedia_properties_search) and the condition that selects it (Stays vs Flights), which is clear context for routing. It stops short of addressing other Expedia siblings like expedia_activities_search or expedia_locations_search, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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