search_trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behaviors: currency follows the flight origin or an explicit code, Viajante does not convert currency, the calling agent may convert, unnamed baggage_buffer defaults to 0, and the same currency is passed to hotels. It does not mention return format, but for a search tool these quirks are the most important behavioral details.

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. Some sentences are terse and cryptic, like 'Unnamed baggage_buffer is 0', but there is no redundant filler and the essential behavioral notes are included.

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 tool with 38 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete. It fails to explain what the response contains, how routes and location are interpreted, how the flight and hotel searches are combined, or what 'shopping request' refers to. The currency and baggage context helps, but significant gaps remain.

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% across 38 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds value for currency, baggage_buffer, bags, and carry_on, but it leaves the required parameters routes and location, plus most other parameters, completely unexplained. This is far from adequate for such a large 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 opening 'Flights then hotel' clearly communicates that this tool combines flight and hotel search, distinguishing it from the sibling tools search_flights and search_hotels. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search' but the tool name supplies that, and the scope is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 operational guidance such as 'If unknown, ask', 'Viajante does not convert', and 'Prefer bags / carry_on on the shopping request', but it never explicitly states when to choose search_trip over search_flights or search_hotels. The combined nature is implied rather than stated as a usage rule.

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