agoda_flights_search_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 'Credential-free public data', which communicates a safe, read-only operation, and describes the output behavior ('each city's direct and nearby airports'). However, it does not mention limitations like rate limits, ambiguity handling, or error conditions, which would have made it even more transparent.

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 earning its place: the first states the main action, the second elaborates on the input and output, and the third notes the access requirement. No filler or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: input format, output type, purpose, and data source. It lacks details on error cases or result formatting, but these are not critical for such a straightforward lookup tool, making it nearly 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?

The schema already describes 'keyword' as 'Free-text city or airport name' (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining that this keyword is resolved into IATA codes, but it does not provide new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 applies.

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 flight destinations/airports' and explains it 'Resolves a free-text city or airport name into IATA airport codes for flight search'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agoda_flights_search, which searches actual flights, and provides specific output details (IATA codes, direct and nearby airports).

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it resolves locations 'for flight search', signaling it is a prerequisite lookup step before performing a flight search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine appropriate use.

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