tool_find_open_jaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains the conceptual output ('Shows total vs simple round-trip') but omits critical details: whether the tool is read-only, what data sources it uses, any limitations (e.g., single vs. multiple options), or potential side effects. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect expectations.

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 highly concise: a one-line purpose, a clarifying example, a contrast note, an input format note, and a cleanly formatted parameter list. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 lacks crucial output details: it only mentions 'Shows total vs simple round-trip' but does not describe the response structure, whether results are multiple options or a single comparison, or how to interpret the output. With no output schema, this omission leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 8 parameters, but the description includes an extensive 'Args' section clarifying each parameter with examples, formats (IATA codes or city names, YYYY-MM-DD dates, cabin_class enum), and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema gaps, adding high-value semantic context.

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: fly into one city, overland, fly out from another'. It gives a concrete example (JFK→Rome, train to Paris, Paris→JFK) and distinguishes from simple round-trips by mentioning comparison. This makes the unique functionality immediately clear.

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 usage for multi-city itineraries with an overland segment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_flights or find_split_ticket. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the description.

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