search_travel_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns generic provider guidance and external booking links,' giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a search tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose and output clearly. It is concise with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description provides some context ('generic provider guidance and external booking links') but does not explain parameter interactions, such as whether a return date is optional for one-way trips, or how currency is used. This leaves gaps for an agent to interpret 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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or parameter constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses 'prepare a travel search workflow for two airports,' clearly indicating the tool is for searching travel between two airports. It is specific about the resource (airports) but uses 'prepare' instead of 'search', which is slightly vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_booking_link' or 'compare_routes', so it loses some clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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