Flight schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is smaller, and it still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: domestic results include cancellations and fares in NT$, while international results fold code-share numbers into one flight. That code-share grouping and fare/cancellation disclosure materially changes how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with data-source nuance and alternatives following. Slightly dense with carrier names, but each sentence contributes distinct information and there is no filler.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, it covers scope, data sources, currency, code-share handling, and the alternative for live data. Only minor gaps remain, such as return volume behavior beyond the schema's limit default.

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 100%, so the schema already carries all parameter semantics, giving a baseline of 3. The worked example (from "松山" to "金門" on a date, or TPE to NRT) illustrates mixing local names with IATA codes but adds no format or constraint detail not already in 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?

States a specific verb and resource (scheduled flights between two airports on a day) and immediately qualifies the two data regimes: Taiwan domestic carriers vs. the published international timetable. An agent can distinguish it from flight_status and flight_board without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes live-status queries to flight_status or flight_board, which is the key disambiguation for this cluster. It does not address adjacent timetable siblings such as flight_seats, but the primary when-not guidance is present.

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