get_flights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search nature and return fields, but lacks details on limits, pagination, error handling, or explicit read-only confirmation. The term 'search' implies a read operation, but more context would be valuable.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lists what will be returned but does not address edge cases, usage constraints, or behavior beyond the basic search, leaving some gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Search for flight offers between two cities' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools (city, tours, hotels). It also lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (flight search) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names make the different use cases obvious, so it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit exclusion.

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