search_flights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the cost ($0.01 per request) and indicates the output type (pricing, itineraries, airlines). However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as rate limits, data sources, or whether the search is read-only. The cost disclosure adds value beyond what the schema provides.

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 two sentences long and clearly front-loads the core function. Every word earns its place: it states what it searches, what it returns, and the cost. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (8 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the search focus, return contents, and cost. The schema covers parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them. It could be improved by mentioning whether it supports one-way vs round-trip explicitly, but this is inferable from the optional returnDate parameter.

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 100% description coverage, documenting all 8 parameters including examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond mentioning route, dates, and passengers, which maps to the existing schema fields. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches flight offers by route, dates, and passengers, and returns pricing, itineraries, and airlines. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'search_cheapest_dates', which may also search for flight options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_cheapest_dates' or 'search_hotels'. It does not mention specific scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it. The only context given is implicit through the description of what it does.

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