expedia_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 behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns 'normalized' results limited to 'departing-leg offers', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or whether the tool requires authentication. It provides some context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise, using only two sentences, and leads with the primary purpose. The redundancy of 'Expedia Flights' and 'Expedia flights' is a minor inefficiency, but the overall length is appropriate and the structure is clear.

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 tool has a nested object parameter with no schema details and no output schema, so the description must provide more context to be effectively invoked. It mentions the key inputs (IATA pair, date range) but does not explain how to structure the 'option' object or what the response contains beyond 'normalized departing-leg offers'. This is insufficient for reliable use without additional assumptions.

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 only parameter is 'option' with a generic schema description ('Flights search payload'). The tool description partially compensates by specifying that the payload should contain an origin/destination IATA pair and date range. However, it does not describe the exact structure, field names, or required vs. optional fields, leaving ambiguity for an agent constructing the payload.

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 Expedia flights.' It specifies the resource (Expedia flights) and the action (search), and adds details about the input scope (origin/destination IATA pair and date range) and output (normalized departing-leg offers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like expedia_properties_search and expedia_activities_search, which target different domains.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For instance, it does not mention that an IATA code might need to be obtained via expedia_locations_search, or that round-trip searches are not supported. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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