List Tariffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that entries carry a `key`, without mentioning whether the tariff catalog is static or remote, how large it is, or whether the language setting affects keys. With annotations and an output schema present, this modest addition is adequate but thin.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is ambiguous: `key` is not a parameter here, so the instruction reads as a dangling reference. Two sentences is the right size, but one of them is not earning its place as written.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for a catalog-listing tool in a large sibling set, the definition never clarifies how the returned keys feed into other tools or whether the list is exhaustive/stable across calls.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains `lang` and its default. The description adds nothing about the parameter and instead introduces a `key` reference that is not an input of this tool, which is mildly confusing rather than informative.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List passenger tariffs") and enumerates the categories returned (adult, child, student, senior), which separates it from siblings such as list_action_prices and list_seat_classes. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is distinct from.

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?

"Use `key` in tariffs arguments" implies a workflow — call this first to obtain keys consumed by other tools — but the guidance is cryptic and never states when this tool should be preferred over the other list_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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