search_flex

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that only one shopping search is performed, that Viajante does not convert currency, that an unnamed baggage_buffer defaults to 0, and that flex-calendar misses are not the same as no_results. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a search tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavior, default, or routing rule. The text is dense and efficient, though the final cluster of notes reads somewhat telegraphically.

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?

For a 37-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers usage boundaries, defaults, currency inference, country semantics, and error-handling behavior. It does not describe the return shape or authentication requirements, but the operational guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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 compensates for the non-obvious parameters: flex is a ±N window, country is a Google gl origin market to omit when unset, baggage_buffer defaults to 0, and currency should be asked about if unknown. Many optional parameters remain undocumented, but their titles and defaults are largely self-explanatory.

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 first sentence defines the operation precisely: flex window around a date, then one shopping search on the cheapest day. It also distinguishes this tool from search_dates and search_flights by name, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to its 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 explicitly routes usage: use search_dates for a cheapest-week calendar, do not brute-force a date matrix, and fall back to a named-date search_flights when a flex calendar miss occurs. This is concrete, actionable guidance with named alternatives.

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