Тариф, багаж и правила перелёта

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the price is re-read and may be outdated, and the tool sorts fares by ascending price with this order numbering. These are useful traits for an agent to know to avoid stale assumptions and to correctly compose the number into the next booking step.

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 organized in a logical, front-loaded order: what the tool does, how the fare number relates to the booking flow, and a critical caveat about fresh pricing. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information; no filler, and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is extremely complete for a tool of this simplicity: it covers the source of the required parameter (offer_id), the meaning and destination of the optional fare, the ordering and numbering, and the price nicety. With an output schema available no return-details repetition is needed, and the annotations layer already covers safety. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden—it succeeds. It explains offer_id as coming from flight_search() and fare as the numbered list index (fare=1, 2, …) that is used for flight_book(), with fare=N filtering to a single tariff. Both parameters are given meaningful context beyond the bare type definitions, leaving no meaning unexplained.

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 precise verb ('показать') and the resource ('Тарифы, багаж и правила возврата по выбранному рейсу'), and further clarifies the exact scope. It explains how a single search result expands into multiple fares and how the tool numbers them, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling flight_search, flight_book, and flight_seats. This is a specific verb+resource verb+resource with a clear role in the flight booking flow.

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 clearly places the tool in the pipeline: offer_id comes from flight_search(), and the fare number generated here is passed to flight_book(). It also names the parameters that drive usage, like fare=N to show one tariff. However, it stops short of explicit 'do not use when…' exclusions or an explicit alternative comparison, though the context makes its role unambiguous.

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