agoda_flights_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful context: 'Credential-free public data from Agoda's own flight search' and mentions 'bookable' itineraries. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or error/empty-result handling, which are important for a search endpoint.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core function, then provides output details, a prerequisite, and auth context—each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers core usage: what it searches, expected inputs (IATA codes, date), output fields, and auth requirements. It omits pagination details, result limits, and round-trip handling, but for a one-way search tool with a self-explanatory schema, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that origin/destination are IATA codes and instructing to resolve free-text names first, which clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema already does.

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: 'Search Agoda one-way flights' and lists specific output fields (per-segment flight number, airline, times, layovers, aircraft type, price). It distinguishes from sibling tools like agoda_flights_search_locations by explicitly focusing on one-way itineraries and referencing IATA codes.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Resolve free-text city/airport names to codes first via the flight destination search endpoint,' which directs the agent to a specific sibling tool. It also implies the tool is for direct IATA-code queries, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives like round-trip searches or other flight providers.

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