search_flights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints: Viajante does not convert currency, the agent may convert for the user, unproven country/dest/currency must not be guessed, unnamed baggage_buffer defaults to 0, and bag fees must not be invented. It does not describe return format or pagination, but for a search tool the key behavioral rules are well covered.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to usage rules. Every sentence adds value, though the list of prohibitions is dense and could be slightly better organized. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 35 parameters.

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 (35 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most critical decision points: when to use alternatives, currency handling, guessing rules, and baggage defaults. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap for a search tool whose results are likely self-explanatory.

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 the meaning of baggage_buffer (unnamed defaults to 0), currency (inferred from origin's country), and the relationship between bags/carry_on and the shopping request. It does not explain all 35 parameters, but it covers the most ambiguous ones and gives a clear default rule for baggage_buffer.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search Google Flights for named routes and dates.' It also names sibling tools (search_dates, search_flex) and distinguishes them by their purpose, so an agent can tell this tool apart from alternatives.

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 says when to use search_dates and search_flex instead, and gives clear guidance on currency handling, asking when unknown, and not guessing unproven values. It also instructs to prefer bags/carry_on on the shopping request and not to invent bag fees, which is actionable usage guidance.

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