find_cheapest_arrival_airport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it compares airports in parallel, consumes one API credit per airport (default 5, max 10), and returns results sorted by price. This is useful behavioral context beyond a generic 'search'.

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 sentences that pack the purpose, use cases, and cost model with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core function and each sentence adds value.

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 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential context: how the tool works, example prompts, cost implications, and result ordering. It doesn't detail return fields, but that's not required given the description's scope. A 4 is appropriate.

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?

The input schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds the default/max of max_airports, which is already in the schema, and doesn't introduce additional semantic meaning beyond confirming the use of arrival_location. 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds the cheapest airport to fly into at a destination by comparing airports in parallel. It provides concrete example questions and explicitly names itself as the arrival-side counterpart to compare_airport_prices, distinguishing it from 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?

The description frames when to use it via examples and the phrase 'arrival-side counterpart to compare_airport_prices,' implying the primary use case is choosing among arrival airports. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions but gives clear context, warranting a 4.

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