dast_flight_dynamic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool is an information-query operation, and it discloses important behavioral boundaries: it only covers a single flight, and it explicitly excludes adjacent capabilities like future delay probability, weather, and flight trajectory. It does not explicitly state whether data is real-time or whether future dates are supported, but the field list and constraints provide strong transparency.

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 main capability is front-loaded in the first sentence. The rest is structured logically: use cases, date-fallback behavior, and explicit exclusions. The field list is long but serves the purpose of disambiguating scope from siblings; it could be tightened slightly, but it is not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns and does. It enumerates the relevant result categories (status, schedules, airports, terminals, gates, baggage, flight duration, etc.), covers the required parameters, addresses the missing-date ambiguity, and explicitly carved out sibling-tool domains. For a low-complexity tool with two scalar parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational value beyond the schema: it explains what to do when the user does not provide a date ('应先追问日期，或在业务允许时明确按当天查询'), effectively giving the agent a policy for handling the required date parameter. It also reinforces that the flight number and date are the core query keys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: query a single flight's dynamic information by flight number and date. It then lists concrete use cases (status, departure/arrival, delays, gates, baggage, etc.) and explicitly states what it is NOT for (flight lists, ticket pricing, booking, future delay probability, airport weather, flight path), which clearly separates it from sibling tools.

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 the tool ('适用于用户询问某个具体航班...') and when not to use it ('该能力不用于查询某条航线的航班列表、机票价格、余票、订票、退改签、...'). It also gives concrete guidance for missing date: first ask the user for the date, or clearly treat it as today if business rules allow.

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