price_calendar

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: prices come from a ~48h Aviasales cache and are not live, the url link confirms the actual price, days without data are omitted, and the three cheapest days are returned separately. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Every sentence carries information (round-trip toggle, return extras, data omission, cache freshness). Slightly dense but well-structured with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it explains the three cheapest days, the exclusion of data-less days, and the url confirmation field. Combined with the cache caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description reinforces the trip_duration semantics (round-trip vs one-way), adding a little meaning, but does not introduce syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: minimum price per departure day in a chosen month, framed as finding the cheapest dates. It clearly separates one-way vs round-trip behavior and names its returned extras. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cheapest_destinations or search_flights, so an agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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 'чтобы найти самые дешёвые даты' (to find the cheapest dates) framing implies the use case, and the trip_duration toggle clarifies two usage modes. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance versus search_flights or cheapest_destinations, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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