passenger_rights

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('most relevant policy passages with sources') but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded with purpose and value, followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose with no waste.

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 is a retriever with an output schema, the description adequately covers its function. It mentions sources and relevance, which combined with output schema, provides complete context.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains both parameters: question with example, and top_k with default value, adding meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up passenger rights and carrier disruption policies' with specific references (EU261, rebooking, baggage, duty of care). It distinguishes from siblings like flight_status and handle_disruption by focusing on policy lookup with citations.

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 implies use when needing to cite entitlements with sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, leaving some guidance unstated.

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