search_flights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior (page, per_page with max 100) and the return format, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. Significant gaps remain for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes scope, the args section documents all parameters with useful examples, and the returns section clarifies output format. No wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering parameters and return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. Minor gaps remain in behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, but overall it's quite 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?

The description provides comprehensive parameter documentation with clear examples (e.g., '2002', 'TIST', 'Palm Beach'), default values, and constraints (max 100 for per_page). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 tool searches flight logs from 1997-2006 across all known aircraft, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('flight logs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_documents or search_persons by focusing exclusively on flight data.

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 implies usage for flight log searches within the 1997-2006 timeframe but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cross_search or get_person. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided beyond the date range.

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