Search Flights

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: results sorted by departure date descending, timestamps in UTC, and matching logic for airports and airlines (IATA code vs. partial name, case-insensitivity).

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 very concise, with three short paragraphs. Each sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers search behavior, sorting, timezone, and matching logic. It could briefly mention the return type (e.g., list of flights with key fields), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use 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% with good descriptions, but the description adds extra semantic detail about how filters match (e.g., airport filters match IATA code exact or city name partial, airline matches IATA exact or airline name partial). This justifies above the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Search the user's flight history') and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the search and filter capabilities, which set it apart from listing or individual flight retrieval tools.

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 states that all filters are optional and combine with AND logic, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings (e.g., for a single flight, use get_flight).

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