List flight/ticket providers

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the scope: it only lists providers that work with plain HTTP calls, and mentions that providers needing a live browser session are not included. This is transparent about what is returned and what is filtered out, though no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits) are provided.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, included fields, and an important exclusion. No wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (list of providers with coverage region and browser requirement flag) and the exclusion of browser-dependent ones. For a simple parameterless tool, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter information, so the baseline of 4 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 lists providers that air_choose can query, specifying the information included (coverage region and whether it needs a live browser session) and explicitly excluding providers that require live sessions, making the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 sets clear expectations on when to use this tool (to list HTTP-only providers) and implies that providers needing a live session are not covered, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for those providers. Sibling tools have different functions, so the usage context is clear.

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