dast_flight_happy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns all cabin data when cabin is omitted and only the specified cabin when provided, and that a date is mandatory. It also implies read-only behavior by describing a query operation. However, it does not explicitly mention idempotence, rate limits, or potential error states, which would be useful but are not critical for a simple query tool.

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 a single paragraph but efficiently front-loads the core purpose and lists key fields. It then provides usage scenarios and exclusions in a logical order. While it is somewhat long, each sentence adds necessary information; it could be structured with bullet points for readability, but it remains clear and avoids fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (oneOf logic, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, how to handle missing date, cabin behavior, and exclusions. It does not mention error handling or edge cases like no results, but the coverage of invocation rules is strong. For a query tool with no output schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the alternative query modes (fnum OR depCode+arrCode), the optional cabin behavior (defaults to all cabins), and the rule to ask for date if missing. This contextual guidance helps the agent select the correct parameters for the user's intent, going beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool queries flight comfort information by flight number and date, enumerates the returned fields (seat width, pitch, recline, entertainment, power, Wi-Fi, meals, aircraft age, punctuality, baggage allowances, cabin class, etc.), and clarifies its applicability to user questions about ride experience, seat comfort, onboard services, and baggage. It also explicitly lists what it is NOT for (real-time status, airport flight lists, ticket prices, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dast_flight_dynamic and dast_future_weather.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (user asks about comfort, seats, services, baggage, aircraft age, cabin comfort) and when-not-to-use (real-time status, pricing, weather, flight path, etc.). It also gives concrete instructions: ask for date if missing, omit cabin if unspecified (returning all cabins), and query only the specified cabin if given. This fully guides an agent on invocation conditions without ambiguity.

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