Sistaminuten travel search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the database source and that it's a search tool, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, response format, error handling, or rate limits. Important behavioral characteristics are absent.

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, conveying essential information without extraneous wording. It could be slightly clearer by avoiding technical jargon like 'NDC-adjusted' upfront, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of 17 parameters, no required parameters, and the presence of a sibling tool, the description is insufficient. It does not explain typical use cases, parameter combinations, or the nature of the output. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the database and search criteria generally but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 flight trips only, available from Sweden, using an NDC-adjusted API with a database of charter flights not found on major metasearch engines. This provides a specific verb ('search'), resource ('flight trips'), and unique value proposition that distinguishes it from general flight search tools.

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 flight searches from Sweden, especially for charter flights, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_holidays. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. However, it only describes the database scope and does not mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, response size, or error handling. For a tool with 37 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 (one paragraph) and front-loaded with purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured or translated to English 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?

With 37 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how results are structured. For such a complex tool, more context is needed for effective agent usage.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond these, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 searches for package holidays from Sweden, listing major suppliers (Ving, TUI, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_flights' by focusing on package deals, not just 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 usage for finding package holiday offers from Sweden. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_flights, the context makes the distinction clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.

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