search_trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds meaningful context: currency follows flight origin or an explicit code, Viajante does not convert, the same currency is passed to hotels, and unnamed baggage_buffer defaults to 0. These are non-obvious behaviors beyond what the schema reveals, though it does not describe output shape or other side effects.

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 short and mostly front-loaded with its core concept, but several phrases are cryptic and loosely connected: 'Flights then hotel,' 'Unnamed baggage_buffer is 0,' and 'Prefer bags / carry_on on the shopping request' are jargon-heavy and jump between topics without clear organization. Conciseness is achieved, but at some cost to readability.

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, this description is far from complete. It covers currency, country, and baggage quirks, but leaves the overall search behavior, relationship between routes and location, result format, and most optional filters effectively undocumented. A higher score would require broader and clearer operational context.

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 for 38 largely unexplained parameters. It does add value for currency, country, baggage_buffer, bags, and carry_on, but the majority of parameters—routes, location, top, sort, cabin, rooms, adults, source, and many filters—receive no semantic clarification beyond their names 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 description begins with 'Flights then hotel,' which signals that this tool searches for bundled flight-and-hotel trip options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights and search_hotels, though the phrasing is terse and could be more explicit about the tool's full purpose.

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 provides situational rules: ask when currency is unknown, do not rely on Viajante to convert, prefer bags/carry_on params, and omit country when unset. However, it never explicitly says when to choose search_trip over alternatives such as search_flights, search_hotels, or search_explore, so the selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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