fa_search_flights_advanced

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. The description adds substantial behavioral details: query language syntax, paging via cursor and max_pages with a billing cap, and operator explanations. 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 dense yet efficient, covering many details in one paragraph. It could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet lists) but is still clear and concise.

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?

The description thoroughly explains query usage and paging but omits the return format or response structure. Since there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for an agent needing to process results.

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%, but the description greatly enhances understanding of the complex 'query' parameter with detailed syntax, operators, keys, and an example. This adds significant value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches flights using a structured query language, explicitly distinguishing it from fa_search_flights as more expressive. The verb 'Search' and resource 'flights' are specific, and the example solidifies the purpose.

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 indicates this tool is for advanced querying compared to fa_search_flights, providing an example and listing operators and keys. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or detailed alternatives, slightly reducing clarity.

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