analyze_layovers

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

Without annotations, the description accurately conveys the tool's behavior: it is read-only and reports layover details. However, it omits details such as how risk level is defined or any dependencies on external data, which could affect agent 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 two sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose and immediately listing the outputs. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values (connection time, risk level, aircraft details). However, it does not mention how maxResults or cabinClass affect results, leaving some ambiguity about output volume and scope.

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 description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. With 60% schema description coverage (origin, destination, departureDate have descriptions; cabinClass and maxResults do not), the description fails to clarify the role of these parameters in the analysis, earning a baseline score.

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 analyzes layover quality for connecting flights, and reports connection time, risk level, and aircraft details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights or get_price_history, which cover different aspects of flight information.

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. It does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer its use case solely from the tool name and purpose.

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