search_explore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful quirks: Viajante does not convert currency, baggage_buffer defaults to 0 when unnamed, and country acts as Google gl (origin market). However, it does not disclose broader behaviors such as result limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving important gaps.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The remaining lines are terse and mostly high-value, though the phrase 'Currency is currency' is awkward and slightly tautological.

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's complexity (37 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is far from complete. It provides a high-level outcome and a few parameter notes, but omits return details, request semantics for most fields, and any guidance on failures or edge cases.

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, but it only clarifies a few parameters: currency inference, country as Google gl, and baggage_buffer default. The other 34 parameters, including subtle ones like no_overnight, require_overnight, and proxy, remain explained only by their titles and defaults.

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 opening line, 'Destinations from one origin, then a priced shortlist,' clearly states the resource (destinations) and scope (one origin) with a distinct outcome. It differentiates from most siblings by implying exploration across destinations rather than point-to-point flights, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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 useful situational instructions such as 'If unknown, ask' for currency and 'omit when unset' for country, but does not say when to choose search_explore over search_dates, search_flex, or search_trip. Usage context is implied by the purpose line, not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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