Google Flights Scraper: Cheapest Dates, Prices & Price History

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the pay-per-result cost model with explicit run start ($0.003) and per-flight ($0.002) charges, which affects how an agent should batch calls. It does not discuss rate limits or result caps beyond maxFlightsPerSearch.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose and return fields first, then the cheapest-day pattern, then cost. Each sentence earns its place, though the cost sentence could arguably live in metadata given other tools omit it.

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 an 11-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (airlines, times, stops, price, route price range) and highlights the key param interaction, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of routing guidance versus the sibling flight tool.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning by linking numberOfDates with cheapestOnly for price-calendar use, which the schema partially covers already (numberOfDates mentions finding the cheapest day).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Flight prices from Google Flights for a route and one or several departure dates') and enumerates the returned fields (airlines, times, stops, price, typical price range). However, it never distinguishes itself from the flight-related sibling find_ryanair_fares, leaving the agent to guess which flight source to use.

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 gives one concrete usage pattern ('Use numberOfDates with cheapestOnly to find the cheapest day to fly'), which is helpful but narrow. It offers no when-not guidance and does not mention the sibling find_ryanair_fares or any other alternative for flight fare lookups.

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