История авиапоисков

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

Although annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds non-obvious behavior not present in annotations: the endpoint responds only under a mobile session with the X-Travel-Context='mb' header, and that header was discovered through live probing rather than passive traffic capture. This is genuinely useful operational context beyond the schema and hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary purpose, gives the unique lookup rule, and closes with an execution-critical technical note. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, the exact condition under which to use the tool, the fact that it is the authoritative IATA-code source, and the session/header prerequisite for the call.

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 zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly says nothing about parameters; no additional semantics are needed.

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 what the tool is and what it offers: flight search history and, critically, the only source of IATA codes paired with city names. This differentiates it from travel sibling tools such as flight_search and flight_offer, and from generic list tools, because it flags a unique lookup responsibility.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: if the user names a city in words, look up its code here rather than substituting from memory. It also explains that this endpoint, like flight_search, works through a mobile session via X-Travel-Context='mb', setting clear invocation expectations.

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