Sistaminuten travel search

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 useful context about the NDC-adjusted API and the unusual charter-flight inventory, but it does not describe result format, availability behavior, or rate limits.

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 sentences, each carrying information: what the API searches, what data source it draws on, and what the user gets. It is slightly redundant with the title, but it remains compact 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?

For a 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description does not clarify which parameters must be combined to produce a valid flight search (e.g., orig, dest, and dates). It gives good market context but leaves invocation logic to the schema.

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 schema already documents all 17 parameters and defaults. The description only says results are 'based on search criteria' and adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 names a concrete action and resource: 'söka efter flygresor (endast flyg) tillgängliga från Sverige' [search for flights only available from Sweden]. The explicit '(endast flyg)' and the Sweden scope distinguish it from the sibling search_holidays and from general metasearch engines.

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?

It provides clear context: this is for flight-only charter inventory that is usually absent from Google Flights, Skyscanner, or Kayak. It does not name the sibling alternative or give an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but '(endast flyg)' plus the search_holidays sibling make the intended use reasonably clear.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the aggregated supplier database and 'best available' offers, but it does not disclose response shape, default result limits, or pagination behavior. With annotations present this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loading the core search function and keeping supplier/market details brief. Some marketing phrasing like 'största och mest kompletta' and 'bästa erbjudandena' is slightly redundant, but it does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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 could have been more explicit about the result shape, but the word 'erbjudanden' and the extensive 'fields' parameter with defaults largely convey what comes back. The annotations cover the read-only aspect, and the schema covers all inputs, so the description is adequate if not fully complete.

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 every parameter already has an inline description, example, and often enums or bounds. The description only refers generically to 'sökkriterier' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the high-coverage 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 that the tool searches for package trips ('paketresor') in Sweden and names the major suppliers, which distinguishes it from a flight-only tool. However, it does not explicitly mention or contrast the sibling tool search_flights, so it stops short of the strongest possible clarity.

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 gives a clear usage context: find available package trips from Sweden based on search criteria, and the package-holiday wording implies the boundary against search_flights. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, so it does not earn a 5.

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