Sistaminuten travel search

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search operation and highlights unique data sources, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication. The information is adequate but could be more transparent.

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, each adding value: purpose and scope, unique data source, and general result focus. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant or wasted words.

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 17 parameters, no required, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and uniqueness. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination, but the search nature makes it reasonably complete. A higher score would require more detail on results.

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 description already has baseline value. The tool description provides overall context (NDC-adjusted, charter flights) but does not add specific meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already offer. At baseline, a 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 searches for flights from Sweden, specifically using NDC-adjusted data including charter seats. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'search_holidays' by specifying 'endast flyg' (only flights), making the purpose distinct.

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 context on when to use this tool: for finding charter flight offers not available on major platforms. While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, the sibling tool name and the 'only flights' qualifier offer implicit guidance. A more explicit when-not-to-use statement would improve clarity.

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. It only mentions the database and providers, but omits read-only nature, result ranking, pagination, or error behavior. No additional context beyond the core purpose.

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 at two sentences, but contains marketing fluff like 'största och mest kompletta' and 'bästa erbjudandena' which doesn't add functional value. Otherwise well-structured and front-loaded.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain response format, how to combine filters, or typical usage patterns, leaving significant gaps 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameter meanings are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, aligning with the baseline score 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 the tool searches for package holidays ('paketresor') in a large Swedish database, with a specific verb ('söka') and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool '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 usage for package holiday searches but never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like search_flights or states when this tool should be preferred. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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