tool_compare_points_programs

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

With no annotations, the description provides clear behavioral context: it compares costs, uses defaults, and matches sweet spots. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening question, a summary sentence, and an Args section. Each sentence adds value, though the Args section could be more bullet-like.

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?

The description covers the tool's function and parameters well, but without an output schema, it does not specify the return format or examples of the comparison result. This leaves some ambiguity about what the agent can expect.

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%, but the description explains all parameters with useful details: cash_price is required, programs is comma-separated with default fallback, cabin and route are optional with examples. Adds significant meaning beyond 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 starts with a clear question and states it compares points programs for a booking, including specific aspects like portal vs transfer value and sweet spots. It is distinct from sibling tools.

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 explains when to omit programs (uses profile cards) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other comparison or estimation tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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