Flaut.Travel

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds value beyond them: it is 'data-only' (no widget), it may be invoked repeatedly, and it clarifies that budget level refers to destination affordability rather than ticket price. It stops short of explaining pagination limits or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the funnel position, then workflow ordering. Mostly tight, though the budget-level clarification slightly duplicates the schema's own wording, making it marginally longer than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description fully covers the multi-step workflow, render contract, and downstream alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented with defaults, enums, and bounds. The description only reiterates the budget-level semantics and alludes to filters/pages, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('discover destination city ideas from traveler preferences') and explicitly frames it as the first step before price search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like render_destinations and search_route_prices without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

Explicit routing: call this before searching route prices, repeat with different filters/pages for comparison, then call render_destinations exactly once with all results (not after each search), and finally call get_route_monthly_prices or search_route_prices once a destination is chosen. When-to-use, when-not-to-render, and alternatives are all named.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and world-scope are covered elsewhere. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are constrained to airports valid for the destination side of a route, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or freshness of analytics data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifies the resource and then lists the returned data categories. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to describe the return format, and its one-sentence summary of payload contents is a reasonable complement rather than a substitute. For a read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; the only gap is the absence of the explicit origin-side alternative for routing decisions.

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 the schema itself carries the substantive semantics: the locale enum's localization note, the IATA pattern with an example (MOW), and the instruction to call resolve_city_iata_code first. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns analytics for airports usable on the destination side of a route) and enumerates the payload contents (prices, route availability, direct flights, airlines). The 'destination side' phrasing implicitly contrasts this with the sibling get_route_origin_airports_analytics, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'airports that can be used on the destination side of a route' implies the usage scenario for this analytics lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., the origin-side sibling). Guidance is present only by implication.

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 cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds substantive context: the returned component is authoritative and must not be re-rendered, and null values mean 'no data for that month'. It also discloses the data's provenance ('cheapest one-way ticket found in recent user searches'), which tells the agent the values are search-derived rather than live inventory.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the rendering constraint, then the data semantics. Every sentence is functional, though the closing sentence on monthly contents overlaps with what an output schema already conveys.

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 an output schema present, the description correctly omits structural return details and instead covers the things the schema cannot express: widget authority, no-duplicate-rendering instruction, and null semantics. Coverage of the tool's behavior is sufficient for correct invocation, though it never clarifies how it relates to the neighboring price tools.

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 all four parameters (locale, originCode, currencyCode, destinationCode) are already fully documented, including the resolve_city_iata_code prerequisite and enum lists. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns monthly prices and an interactive Flaut.Travel price chart for a city-to-city route'), which is clear and concrete. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_route_prices or render_route_prices, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Provides strong post-invocation guidance ('do not create another chart or table', 'provide only a brief textual takeaway'), which shapes how the result is used. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling price tools, so usage selection remains implied rather than stated.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add the shape of the returned analytics (prices, route availability, direct flights, airlines), but says nothing about localization behavior, caching, or result 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the payload contents, with no filler or repetition of schema detail.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining requirement is routing context. It covers what the tool returns but omits the origin-vs-destination selection rule, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong among these siblings.

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 the schema already explains originCode as 'alternatives on this side', destinationCode, locale localization, and the currencyCode enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns analytics for airports ... on the origin side of a route') and enumerates the data returned (prices, route availability, direct flights, airlines). The phrase 'origin side' implicitly separates it from the destination-side sibling, but it never names that sibling or any other alternative outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., that originCode/destinationCode are required and must be resolved via resolve_city_iata_code), and no mention of when to prefer this over get_route_destination_airports_analytics or search_route_prices. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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 establish readOnly/safe behavior, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: deduplication of cities, first-seen order preservation, the 20-destination cap, empty-state rendering, the same-locale constraint, and the warning not to recreate the component as a carousel/grid/list/table.

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?

Purpose, invocation constraint, and the sibling routing are front-loaded, with the dedup/cap/empty-state and rendering rules following. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the ordering, dedup, cap, empty-state, locale, and single-render constraints an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single param is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond it: results must be passed unchanged, kept in combined order, and share the same locale even when filters/pages/limits differ.

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?

States a specific verb (Render) and resource (destination widget) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling discover_destinations by positioning itself as the final step after those calls complete. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite sibling ('after all discover_destinations calls are complete'), the invocation count ('call this tool exactly once'), and the ordering of results. This is unambiguous when/when-not guidance.

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 only declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it combines and deduplicates tickets, preserves route semantics, sorts globally by price when price sorting was used, and renders an explicit empty state.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its timing, then layered with the constraints and the rendering contract. Every sentence carries unique instructions (timing, pass-through, merge/dedup/sort behavior, do-not-recreate) with no filler.

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 one-parameter, high-coverage schema with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: invocation timing, exact input expectations, merge semantics, and the UI presentation contract. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the schema says to pass results unchanged in search order, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by spelling out the consistency rules between the combined result set (same route, currency, market, locale, one-way, sorting, unique; differing dates/pages/limits/direct allowed), which the schema does not express.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Render one final Flaut.Travel route-price widget') and explicitly scopes it to the terminal step after search_route_prices calls. This unambiguously separates it from the sibling search_route_prices, which only retrieves data.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('exactly once, after all search_route_prices calls are complete') plus named alternatives to avoid ('do not recreate it as a separate card grid, list, or table'). It also lists which fields must match across searches and which may differ, so the agent knows exactly what input is acceptable.

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=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are cities only, never airports, but says nothing about match behavior, locale effects, or result ordering. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the core action leads and the scope caveat follows immediately. Every clause 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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the prerequisite usage plus the cities-only constraint cover the essentials for a simple three-parameter lookup. Only minor behavioral context (fuzzy matching, locale handling) is absent.

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 query, limit, and locale are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already structured, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('resolve a city name into its corresponding city IATA code') and immediately scopes it with 'It returns cities only, not individual airports.' An agent can distinguish this lookup from the price and analytics siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit readiness condition: call this before any route price, monthly price, or airport analytics tool that needs a city code, which maps onto the sibling set. It lacks named alternatives or a when-NOT case, but the prerequisite framing is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful behavioral context: prices are cached user-sourced data (not an offer), the 48-hour staleness window, and that empty tickets means no cached match rather than no flights. It does not disclose pagination limits or result caps, but the schema carries those.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the sentences proceed in call order: data nature, locale rule, required inputs, date formats, batching, rendering, empty-result meaning, special modes, prerequisite. Dense but every sentence changes agent behavior, so nothing is wasted.

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 13 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies precisely the missing pieces an agent needs: date-format policy, minimum input rule, batching workflow, follow-up render call, and empty-result interpretation. Nothing required for a correct invocation is absent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: 'Provide at least origin or destination' as a cross-field rule, the origin+unique=true combination for cheapest-destination discovery, and the constraint to reuse the same market and trip settings across periods. It does not clarify sorting/currency/page interactions, so it is not a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('search for cached route prices') and immediately scopes it as 'data-only', which cleanly separates it from the rendering sibling render_route_prices. The 'from the monolith backend' qualifier plus the cached/48-hour framing tells the agent exactly what kind of data it will get.

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?

Gives explicit conditional rules: YYYY-MM for months/seasons/flexible dates, YYYY-MM-DD only when the user named an exact day, never invent a day. It names the pre-requisite sibling (resolve_city_iata_code), the follow-up sibling (render_route_prices exactly once), and the multi-period calling pattern with same market/trip settings. This is when-to-use guidance at its most actionable.

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