Restplass travel search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions 'NDC-justert' and that it contains charter flight seats not found elsewhere, but it does not disclose important behaviors like rate limits, data freshness, caching, authorization needs, or the mutation aspect. This is insufficient for a complex 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 three sentences in Norwegian, front-loaded with the purpose, and concise. It includes a unique selling point about the data source. However, the last sentence is somewhat generic and could be omitted without loss. Overall, it is well-structured and to the point.

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 high parameter count (17), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about how the parameters interact, suggested usage patterns, or what the response looks like. The current description is minimal and does not compensate for the missing structured information.

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 adds some context (NDC-based, charter flights) but does not add specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for all 17 parameters.

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's for searching flights (only flights) available from Norway, using an NDC-adjusted API. It mentions the database includes charter flights not on major platforms. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from its sibling tool 'search_holidays', missing a clear differentiation.

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 finding the best flight offers based on criteria, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_holidays'. No conditional contexts or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It only implies a read-only search operation, but more detail is needed.

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 but could be better structured. It is a single paragraph that states the tool's scope but lacks front-loading of key information or use of bullet points for clarity.

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 high complexity (37 parameters, no output schema), the description is too generic. It does not explain return values, common use cases, or how to combine parameters effectively, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already documents all 37 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'søkekriterier' (search criteria), so a baseline score 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's purpose: to search the largest database of package holiday deals in Norway from multiple operators. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_flights' by focusing on package holidays, not flights alone.

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 finding package deals from Norway based on search criteria but does not explicitly state when to use it versus 'search_flights' or provide exclusions.

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