Get Flight Connections

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds behavioral context: results are sorted by departure time descending, timestamps are UTC, and it lists return fields. This provides value beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, effectively conveying all necessary information.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers sorting, timezone, and return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description compensates by clearly detailing the output fields and format.

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 'Get layover/connection information for the user's flights,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like flighty_get_flight or flighty_list_flights by focusing on connections.

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 tool's purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for retrieving connections but lacks direct comparisons.

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