search_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals critical behavior: no fetch mode, no currency conversion (and allows the agent to convert), optional country as Google gl, and a default baggage_buffer of 0. It also warns about blocking and what not to do afterward. The main gap is absence of side-effect or error details, but it covers the key operational quirks well.

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 several sentences long but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, and key parameter details. It is front-loaded with the purpose and routing, and the structure separates concerns (usage, parameters, currency). It is not overly verbose given the 36 parameters, though it could be tightened by removing redundancies like 'currency is currency'.

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 36 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid foundation for the core use case (cheapest week) but omits many parameter semantics and does not describe the output format, pagination, or return behavior. It is complete enough for a basic call but not fully comprehensive for all configurable options.

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 explains route, start/end, currency, country, and baggage_buffer, but the other 31 parameters (sort, trip, cabin, proxy, adults, nearby, nights, airlines, alliance, carry_on, max_stops, price_cap, etc.) receive no semantic explanation. This leaves many parameters ambiguous for an agent, especially without an output 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 states a clear purpose: 'Cheapest-per-day calendar for a named route (up to 31 days).' It uses a specific verb (search/calendar) and a resource (route), and explicitly contrasts with search_flex ('Use search_flex for ±N around one date'), making it distinguishable 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for the cheapest week. Use search_flex for ±N around one date.' It also provides strong negative guidance, telling the agent to stop after this tool and not follow with flex or search_flights, and warns against using a separate browser as MCP recovery. This is exemplary routing.

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