compare_airport_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context such as 'Read-only, no account setup, no booking side effects' and notes that responses may include commission-eligible external booking links, which aligns with and supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and booking link disclosure. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits. It mentions booking links but could be more explicit about the comparison output format (e.g., what data is compared). However, with openWorldHint=true, it is reasonably 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% with the single 'routes' parameter fully described (array of objects with origin/destination). The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, merely restating 'two or more airport route pairs.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema.

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 'Compare two or more airport route pairs side by side,' clearly defining the verb (compare) and resource (airport route pairs). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming plan_flight_route for single dated routes and get_airport_details for single airport lookups.

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 guidance on when to use ('when a traveler is choosing between alternate origins, destinations, or nearby airports') and when not to (by naming alternative tools). It also clarifies that it is read-only with no account setup or booking side effects.

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