search_flights

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that results are fictional and not connected to live availability, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details like error handling, pagination, or read-only status. Given that the key caveat is present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and the demo disclaimer is clearly stated. Every word adds value, making it a model of conciseness.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the crucial fake-data caveat. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus fetching a specific flight (get_flight), and does not mention search result behavior. This is adequate but with clear gaps, so a 3 is justified.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning beyond what the parameter names already suggest (origin, destination, date, etc.). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, so it earns a 2.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('the local sample flight inventory'), and clarifies the fictional/demo nature. It distinguishes itself from live booking systems but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_flight, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., get_flight for a specific flight). The 'local sample' phrasing implies a demo/testing context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, resulting in a score of 2.

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