Resolve a place name to each provider’s own codes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: acceptable input types (country names in RU/EN, IATA codes, built-in aliases), per-provider return, empty list meaning no service (not an error), and provider parameter defaults with a note about jetstar requiring browser cookie. No contradictions.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It is front-loaded with the key instruction and then provides details on inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly restructured for brevity.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, but moderate complexity, the description thoroughly covers input semantics, return format, edge cases (empty list, jetstar), and ties to sibling tool add_watch. It leaves no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the types of valid inputs for 'query' (country names, IATA codes, aliases) and for 'providers' (defaults, jetstar special case). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: to resolve place names to provider-specific internal codes. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly instructing to call this before add_watch, making the resource and action clear.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST for both the origin and the destination before add_watch.' It also explains what empty results mean and notes the default providers and special case for jetstar, giving when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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