plan_open_jaw_trip

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 searches all nearby departure airports at once, compares two directions, returns ranked options with flight details and booking tokens, and uses 4 API credits total. These are important behavioral disclosures beyond a simple 'plan a trip' statement.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then an example, then the detailed options and output. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good high-level overview of the output (ranked options, flight details, booking tokens) and the cost (4 API credits). It could go deeper into the return structure, but for a planning tool with no output schema, this is a solid summary.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions already in the schema. The tool description reiterates the roles of destination_a and destination_b but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Plan an open-jaw trip visiting two destinations — fly into one country and out of another without backtracking.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the example ('Nottingham to Argentina and Chile in October') helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_flights or plan_multi_stop_trip.

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 clear context with the ideal use case example and explains the two itinerary directions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the example and focus on open-jaw trips give a solid sense of when it is appropriate.

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