get_flights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'cached' nature, which signals possibly stale data, but gives no further behavioral details such as pagination or data freshness. With annotations present, the incremental context is moderate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action, and the schema handles all technical detail, so this brevity is appropriate.

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?

This tool has 17 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the return shape, pagination, the meaning of cursor, or how include_trips affects results. The schema covers parameter meaning, but the description leaves the agent without essential behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 17 parameters have meaningful descriptions), and the tool description adds no parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden of parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cached award flights') on seats.aero, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like live_search (cached vs. live) and get_trips/get_routes (award flights vs. trips/routes).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The word 'cached' implies this tool serves cached data rather than live searches, but it does not name alternatives like live_search or refresh_cached_data. Usage context is only implied.

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