booking_flights_autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns suggestions, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a simple autocomplete this is acceptable, but it doesn't go beyond the bare minimum. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and domain, and the mention of 'airports/cities' adds useful context without fluff. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant information.

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 autocomplete tool with four parameters (one required) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and the domain. It does not elaborate on response structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, this is not a significant gap. It could mention how 'origin' biases results, but the schema already covers that.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (query, type, origin, origin_type). The description adds minimal value beyond saying 'query string' and mentioning airports/cities, which aligns with the query parameter. It does not add extra meaning to parameters like origin or type, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: it returns Booking.com flight-search location suggestions (airports/cities) for a query string. This is specific, includes the resource (Booking.com flights) and the output type, and distinguishes it from other flight tools by naming the source. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage – when you need location suggestions for Booking.com flight search – but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention sibling tools like booking_flights_search or expedia_flights_search. The context is clear enough for an obvious autocomplete use case, but lacks explicit direction.

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