search_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that currency is inferred from the origin's owned country if not provided, that Viajante does not do conversion, and that the default baggage_buffer is 0. These are non-obvious traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but that is typical for a search tool and not a critical gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage and behavioral caveats. It avoids repetition and each sentence adds distinct value. It is slightly long due to multiple points, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool has 36 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers the purpose, one usage scenario, currency behavior, and one default, but leaves the vast majority of parameters unaddressed. An agent would likely struggle to know what optional filters exist and how to set them 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains a few parameters: the route (named), the date range (up to 31 days), and explicitly the baggage_buffer default. The other 30+ parameters (e.g., trip, cabin, max_stops, exclude_via, min_layover) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or valid values.

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 it is a cheapest-per-day calendar for a named route, limited to 31 days, and explicitly differentiates from search_flex for ±N around a single date. This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use this for the cheapest week') and when to use an alternative ('Use search_flex for ±N around one date'). It also provides guidance on currency handling, including when to ask the user and that Viajante does not convert currencies. This is clear, actionable context.

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