agoda_flights_itinerary_amenities

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Credential-free public data' and 'from Agoda's own flight content service'. This tells the agent no authentication is required and identifies the data source. It also mentions 'real-content amenities', implying live data. It does not detail error behaviors or rate limits, but the provided context is meaningful.

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, each contributing essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the input. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no redundant language.

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 simplicity (one nested parameter, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return content, input source, and auth requirements. It does not outline the return structure or pagination, but for a straightforward amenities lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only a generic 'body' parameter described as 'One or more flight segments to fetch amenities for.' The description adds value by instructing to 'copy the segments straight from a flight search response's own segment fields,' which clarifies the source and format of the input. However, it still does not specify the exact nested structure or how multiple segments are represented, so it only modestly supplements the schema.

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 function: 'Get Agoda flight segment amenities' and enumerates the returned content (aircraft type, seat layout, meals, entertainment, wifi). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agoda_flights_search, which searches for flights rather than fetching amenities for existing segments.

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 practical usage context: 'Copy the segments straight from a flight search response's own segment fields.' This implies the tool is used after a flight search and tells the agent exactly where to obtain the input. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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