Search the FlightByte docs

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context by disclosing the return shape (title, URL, snippet) and the auth constraint ("Works without an API key"). It leaves out ranking behavior or whether results are always returned when nothing matches, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the follow-up step; nothing is padding. The long parenthetical topic list (authentication through signature verification) is bulky but does real work as keyword priming for an agent forming a query.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched, what is returned, that no API key is needed, and what to do next. There is no output schema to defer to, and the description compensates by describing the result fields directly.

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% and the schema itself documents both parameters, including the 1-10 limit range, the default of 5, and example query strings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("keyword search over the whole FlightByte documentation") and enumerates the corpora covered: docs, API reference, engineering guides, glossary. It also says what comes back ("best-matching sections with title, URL and a snippet"), so an agent knows exactly what this tool is versus the flight/subscription siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("before answering questions about the API... or before writing integration code") and a concrete next step ("then read the full page with get_doc_page"), which is real workflow routing. It does not say when this tool is the wrong choice or name a competing search path, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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