get_flight_summary_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the required parameters and the recommendation for an additional parameter, but does not disclose the return format, error behavior if requirements are not met, or any other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. The IMPORTANT note is concise and directly actionable.

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 schema provides rich parameter details, and the description covers the count semantics and constraints. However, given the many sibling tools, the description does not clarify when to use this over get_live_flights_count or get_historic_flights_count, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the required datetime parameters and the recommendation to include at least one additional search parameter, which is not explicitly stated in the schema for the optional parameters. However, this addition is minimal.

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 returns the number of flights for a flight summary query, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('number of flights'). It distinguishes from siblings that provide flight details or positions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the live/historic count tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: flight_datetime_from and flight_datetime_to are required, and at least one additional search parameter should be provided. This is helpful for correct invocation, though it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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