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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are 'structured flight options sorted by price' and how the airlines parameter changes result inclusion. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, request failures, result field structure, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well organized into short, focused paragraphs: core purpose, format conventions, and airline behavior. It is concise enough to read quickly and front-loads the most critical information. The examples for airline codes are slightly verbose but useful for correct invocation.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers the essential required inputs and one key optional parameter, but it leaves several optional semantics implicit. An agent can make a basic correct call using the required fields, but it would need to infer the behavior of trip, return_date, max_stops, and max_results without further guidance. The mention of 'structured flight options sorted by price' gives some return context but not enough to fully anticipate the response.

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 adds valuable meaning for the three required parameters by specifying IATA codes and YYYY-MM-DD date format, and it thoroughly explains the airlines parameter. However, several optional parameters like trip, seat, max_stops, currency, and max_results rely on their names alone, with no explanation of allowed values or interactions such as how return_date and trip relate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google Flights for available flights between two airports.' It clearly states the tool's input scope and result type, making the purpose immediately obvious. With no sibling tools to differentiate from, this is fully sufficient.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever flight search between two airports is needed. It explicitly covers how to format airports and dates and how to use the airlines parameter. There are no sibling tools or exclusions to mention, so the absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not a significant gap.

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