expedia_flights_search

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 does reveal that the tool returns 'departing-leg offers' and that results are 'normalized', which is useful context about output structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies it), nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or handling of return legs. It provides some value but is not comprehensive, warranting a mid-range score.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies the output and key inputs. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a search tool.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and nine fields, the description is relatively minimal. It gives a high-level summary of what is returned ('departing-leg offers') but does not elaborate on the result structure, pagination, or how optional parameters affect behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on expected return format and parameter usage. It is adequate but leaves gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description adds meaning to the core required parameters by clarifying that origin/destination are IATA codes and that departure_date is part of a 'date range'. This goes beyond the trivial schema description of the payload object. However, it does not explain the many optional fields (adults, locale, currency, trip_type, cabin_class, return_date) or their formats. Since the schema itself lacks field-level descriptions, the description only partially compensates, justifying a 3.

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 action: 'Search Expedia flights', specifies the resource (Expedia Flights), and defines the output: 'normalized Expedia Flights search results (departing-leg offers)'. It also identifies the key inputs: origin/destination IATA pair and date range. This distinguishes it from other Expedia tools like property or activity searches, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 makes it explicit that this tool is for flight searches based on an origin/destination pair and dates, which is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., expedia_properties_search, expedia_activities_search) or when not to use it. It implies usage through the flight-specific focus but lacks explicit exclusions, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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