agoda_flights_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is credential-free and accesses public data from Agoda's own flight search, and it details the return contents. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or potential errors. Since it is a read-only search tool, the description covers the core behavior but omits some operational details.

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 and followed by output details and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to prepare inputs (IATA codes). It covers the essential context for correct use. However, it could mention pagination behavior or result limits, and it does not explicitly state that it does not support round-trip searches (though 'one-way' implies it). Overall, it is fairly 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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by emphasizing that origin and destination must be IATA codes and by pointing to the location resolution prerequisite. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, providing context that helps correct invocation.

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 searches Agoda one-way flights, with specific scope (two IATA codes and a departure date) and lists the output contents (per-segment flight number, airline, times, layovers, aircraft type, price). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agoda_flights_search_locations by noting the need to resolve free-text names first, and from other flight searches (e.g., expedia_flights_search) by specifying one-way only.

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 explicitly instructs to resolve free-text city/airport names via the flight destination search endpoint before using this tool, providing a clear when-to-use alternative. It also implies that this tool expects IATA codes, guiding correct parameter preparation. This is explicit and actionable.

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