plan_flight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that errors are caught internally and returned as strings, and it outlines the return structure. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior.

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-structured with 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Raises' sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists (implied by the detailed return description), the description adequately covers return values. It also mentions error handling. However, it lacks information about prerequisites or required permissions, but these are not critical for this tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that 'departure' and 'arrival' are dicts with 'city', 'country', 'iata', and that 'aircraft' includes 'ac_type', 'cruise_alt_ft', 'route_step_km'. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states 'Plan a flight route between two airports with performance estimates', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate_distance' or 'get_aircraft_performance'.

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 implies usage for flight route planning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_distance' or 'get_aircraft_performance'. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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