cheapest_dates_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior of different backends (graph vs sweep vs auto) and mentions speed implications, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any data limitations, rate limits, or potential variability in results, which would be helpful for a tool using different search backends.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides structured information about trip_length and backend behavior. It uses bullet-like structure within paragraphs effectively, with no wasted words.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but lacks detailed parameter explanations and behavioral notes. It covers the essential usage and return format but could be more complete by describing the meaning of the warning field, typical use cases, and edge cases like date boundaries.

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 input schema has 9 parameters but the description does not explicitly map each parameter beyond trip_length and backend. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains a couple of parameters. The return structure is described, but parameter semantics for origin, destination, start, end, seat, nonstop, currency are left to the schema, which has no description.

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 finds the cheapest fare for each departure date over a date range for a given route, distinguishing it from typical one-off price lookup tools. It specifies input format and return structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the trip_length parameter (one-way vs round trip) and backend options, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tools are provided, we cannot evaluate differentiation, but the description does give context on how to use different backends.

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