live_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful access restrictions ('cannot be used by Seats.aero Pro users', 'requires a commercial agreement') and the 'live' nature of the search, which go beyond annotations. It doesn't describe rate limits or response format, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important access restriction. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 does not explain return values, pagination, or result structure, which is a gap for a search tool. However, the access restrictions and 'live' nature provide useful context, and the rich parameter schema covers the input side. It is adequate but not deeply 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., origin/destination/departureDate/source are all well-documented). The phrase 'one route, date, and mileage program' maps directly to existing schema fields without extra semantics.

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 clearly states 'Run a live award search for one route, date, and mileage program' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bulk_avail (multiple routes) or get_flights (cached searches) by emphasizing 'live' and 'one route'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flights or get_bulk_avail. The only context is an access restriction ('cannot be used by Pro users', 'requires commercial agreement'), which is not usage guidance. There are no when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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