Search flights and hotel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, yet the description adds real operational detail: no currency conversion, hotel inherits the flight currency, stay dates default to the flight window, positive carry_on is verified on-page while named bags are refused, trip_total is omitted if either side misses, and deadline_seconds yields error code 'deadline' rather than empty results. The deadline and trip_total semantics in particular are non-obvious behavior that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the whole description is short for a 39-parameter tool, so it is not padded. However, several fragments ('Unnamed baggage_buffer is 0', 'under one lock') are terse to the point of ambiguity and the odd indentation of the deadline_seconds block hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description does cover several cross-cutting behaviors. But for a tool this complex (two bundled searches, 39 params, 0% schema coverage), omitting the format and semantics of the required routes and location arguments, plus nearly all filter parameters, leaves the agent unable to invoke it correctly without external help.

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 39 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only touches currency, check_in/check_out defaults, baggage_buffer, carry_on, bags, and deadline_seconds. The two required parameters, routes and location, are never described, and the meanings of sort, trip, fetch, source, via, max_stops, price_cap, and the exclude/include families are left entirely undocumented.

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 sentence gives a concrete composite verb+resource: it searches flights and then one hotel stay 'under one lock'. That is distinguishable from search_flights and search_hotels, and it explicitly ties its flight output to the search_flights recommendation block. It stops short of naming the siblings it replaces, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement versus search_flights, search_hotels, or plan_stay_blocks. The only conditional guidance is 'if unproven, ask' for currency and a referral to get_guide for deadline behavior. The agent has to infer that this tool is for combined flight+lodging itineraries.

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