find_stopover_flights

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

With no annotations, the description discloses API credit costs (2/3 credits), automatic airport resolution, and the precise date scheduling logic. It also notes the optional return leg. There's no mention of response format or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two short paragraphs plus a concise example, with no filler. The most important info (what and how) is upfront.

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 13-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, cost, and optional return leg. It doesn't describe result structure, but given the schema's full parameter coverage, the tool's behavior is sufficiently specified.

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?

While schema covers all 13 params, the description adds the temporal relationship (outbound_date + stopover_days) and clarifies the optional return_date behavior. It also emphasizes the auto-resolution of stopover_location, though that's already in the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('a split itinerary via a stopover city'), then illustrates with an example (LHR → Dubai → NRT). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like simple search_flights or plan_multi_stop_trip by defining the stopover structure.

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?

It provides a clear scenario and the structural logic of the search (origin→stopover, stopover→destination, optional return). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the use case is evident. The example and optional return mention provide context.

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