Search flights (multi-city capable)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses latency ('Expect 20-60s'), return value ('ranked itineraries and a Search ID'), and slice semantics. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful for invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences plus a bulleted list convey the core concept, routing flexibility, latency, and follow-up flow. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 is complex (13 params, multi-slice logic) and has no output schema. The description covers the essential mental model, routing mechanism, latency, and connection to get_itinerary_details. It does not enumerate return field details or error handling, but for a search tool paired with a details tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 54%, so the description adds valuable extra meaning. It explains the slices parameter's semantics (one-way/round-trip/open-jaw) and the routing parameter's purpose (pin carrier, force connection, control flight count). Other parameters like passenger counts remain undocumented in both schema and description, but the most complex parameters receive useful added context.

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 opens with 'Search ITA Matrix for itineraries' – a specific verb+resource pair. It then distinguishes trip shapes (one-way, round-trip, multi-city) and explicitly mentions the Search ID for get_itinerary_details, clearly separating this tool from the details tool.

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 clear usage context: slice count determines trip type, routing codes allow complex legs, and results feed into get_itinerary_details. It does not explicitly contrast with search_flexible_dates or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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