Restplass travel search

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description usefully adds that the database contains charter-flight seats normally absent from Google Flights, Skyscanner, and Kayak, which sets accurate expectations about inventory uniqueness. It does not add details on response format, pagination, or rate limits, so it adds moderate but not rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentences convey purpose first, then a value-adding detail about the unique charter inventory. The final sentence ('Finn de beste tilgjengelige flytilbudene basert på søkekriterier') is mildly redundant with the first sentence but does not add meaningful bloat.

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?

With 17 well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description covers the data-source angle well. However, there is no output schema and the description never mentions return shape, nor does it explicitly address the sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer routing and response expectations.

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 every parameter documented including IATA code examples, NDC references, defaults, and min/max bounds. The free-text description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('søke') tied to a clear resource ('flyreiser, kun fly') and adds geographic scope ('tilgjengelig fra Norge'). The explicit parenthetical '(kun fly)' differentiates it from the sibling search_holidays, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 scoping language 'kun fly' and 'tilgjengelig fra Norge' implies when this tool applies, and the sibling search_holidays is present in context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose search_holidays instead, nor any when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool aggregates offers from named Norwegian tour operators and claims to return the 'best offers', but it does not disclose operational behavior such as pagination, response shape, or limits beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence is front-loaded, but sentences two and three mostly restate sentence one: 'gi de beste tilbudene' and 'Finn de beste tilgjengelige pakkereisetilbudene' are near duplicates. Marketing superlatives like 'største og mest komplette' and 'umiddelbart' add little information, so not 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?

With 37 optional parameters and a rich schema, the description can rely on the schema for filter details, and the annotations cover read-only safety. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the response structure or default behavior, so the agent gets only partial orientation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented, examples, and enums, so the schema already carries most of the parameter burden. The description only says 'based on search criteria' and adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 identifies the action as searching for package-tour offers from Norway ('søke ... etter pakkereisetilbud') and names several suppliers, so an agent can tell it is the package-holiday search tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_flights, but 'pakkereiser' versus flights offers an implicit 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?

The description implies the intended use case: find available package tours from Norway based on search criteria, and the sibling name search_flights suggests the alternative. It never states when not to use this tool or explicitly points to search_flights, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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