mcp-colombia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns links to Avianca, LATAM and Skyscanner, which is useful output information. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a flight search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information in just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial output information. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, flight search functionality) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers what the tool does and what it returns (links to specific providers), but doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or detailed usage scenarios. For a tool with no output schema, mentioning the return format is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 6 parameters thoroughly with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Busca vuelos domésticos e internacionales desde/hacia Colombia' (searches domestic and international flights to/from Colombia). It specifies the verb ('busca') and resource ('vuelos') with geographic scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'viajes_buscar_hotel' beyond the obvious flight vs. hotel distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling hotel search tool or any other flight search options. The only implicit context is that it's for flights rather than hotels, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations.

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