get_flight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and adds 'fictional' to set expectations about data context, but it doesn't disclose error behavior, response format, or any side effects beyond that. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is adequate but minimal; it doesn't go beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundant words. Every word adds value, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'complete information' entails and any prerequisites. It says the flight is fictional, which sets expectations, but it doesn't describe the structure of the returned flight data or any potential errors (e.g., not found). For a tool with one simple parameter, this is minimally acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for the only parameter, flight_id. The description says 'by its ID,' which clarifies that flight_id is the identifier, but it doesn't provide format, constraints, or an example. This partially compensates for the schema gap but doesn't fully clarify what values are acceptable or how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., via search_flights).

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 ('Retrieve'), a resource ('flight'), and the key discriminator (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights (which finds flights) and get_booking (which retrieves bookings). No ambiguity exists.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a flight_id and want its complete information. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this over search_flights when an identifier is already known. However, it lacks an explicit statement like 'use this when you have an ID, use search_flights to find flights.'

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