compare_airport_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches airports in parallel, consumes one API credit per airport, has a default of 5 and max of 10 airports, and sorts results by cheapest price. This is valuable beyond a simple statement of purpose, though it does not describe the return format.

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 three tight sentences: a clear purpose statement, an illustrative example, and key constraints/behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant prose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description provides honest selection context: what it does, when to use it, and how cost/sorting behave. It does not describe the result structure, but for choosing the right tool among siblings, the description is sufficiently complete, and the rich schema covers input requirements.

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 the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. It does add a link between max_airports and API credit cost ('Uses one API credit per airport searched (default 5, max 10)'), but this is more behavioral than parameter-semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find the cheapest departure airport for a trip by searching from all major airports near a location in parallel.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_cheapest_arrival_airport and search_flights by focusing on departure-airport comparison.

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?

Provides a concrete example of when to use it ('Should I fly from East Midlands, Birmingham, or Manchester to Buenos Aires?') which makes the intended use case clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the example plus the parallel search concept imply the comparison scenario.

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