search_flights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies constraints (non-stop, one adult) but does not disclose whether it is a live search, whether it modifies data, or the format of return results. Additional context on side effects or access patterns would be beneficial.

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?

Description is concise with a clear header and a straightforward list of args. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Well-suited for quick comprehension.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential input semantics and constraints. However, it could mention that the search is for commercial flights (bookable) and that results may vary over time.

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 must compensate. It explains all four parameters with examples (IATA codes, ISO date format) and default values for max_results. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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?

Description clearly states it searches bookable flights for a route and date, with explicit constraints (non-stop, one adult). It differentiates from sibling tools like flight_status or handle_disruption by focusing on searching, not status or disruption handling.

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?

Implied usage for searching flights, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like flight_status or predict_delay. No exclusions or use-case boundaries mentioned.

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