compare_airlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output as a ranked list but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., no matches). The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and criteria, the second describes the output. No unnecessary words, 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 the simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, existing output schema) and the context of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention that the output is a list of airline names.

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 has 0% description coverage and only a generic string type for 'criteria'. The description adds significant meaning by enumerating the allowed values and their definitions (e.g., 'cabin' means allow cabin pets), which helps the agent select appropriate inputs.

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 the verb 'compare' and the resource 'airlines', specifying the exact criteria available ('cabin', 'cargo', 'brachycephalic', 'cheapest'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_airline_policy.

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 lists the criteria for comparison, implying when to use this tool (when needing a ranked list based on specific pet-related features). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context signals from sibling names provide some differentiation.

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