search_flights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes parameters and examples, but does not mention what the tool returns (response structure), side effects, rate limits, authentication, or error handling. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates, but the description does not clarify the tool's behavior beyond querying.

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 a brief main sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'Args:' line is slightly redundant, and some parameter descriptions could be integrated more concisely. Still, it is efficient and uncluttered.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers parameters thoroughly. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use this tool versus siblings (search_flight_destinations) and assumptions about input IDs. It is adequate for parameter documentation but not fully comprehensive for an AI agent's decision-making.

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 must add meaning. It does so excellently by providing clear explanations, example values (e.g., 'OPO.AIRPORT' for from_id), format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD), defaults, and allowed values for cabin_class. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 'Search for flights between two locations', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'search_flight_destinations' which searches for destinations rather than flights between locations. The scope is well-defined.

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. The description does not state scenarios or prerequisites. For example, it does not differentiate from search_flight_destinations or indicate when to use each. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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