Search Flight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: specifying 'destination' auto-generates an arrival-terminal→destination access route, and 'language' force-overrides auto-detection. It stops short of describing return format, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid added value.

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?

One dense, front-loaded block that leads with the core action and then layers the modifier behaviors. The leading emoji is minor noise, but every sentence carries information and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with full annotation coverage, a fully covered 7-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, the modifiers, and the language behavior. Nothing load-bearing is missing.

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 100%, and each parameter (airport, flight_number, destination, language, direction) is already documented in the schema with examples. The description restates the destination and language behaviors already present in the schema, adding little semantic detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('検索') and resource (arrival/departure flights) with scope qualifiers: by airport (Haneda/Narita) or by flight number. This clearly distinguishes it from the search_* siblings (search_route, search_bus, search_ferry, search_fare) which target different resources.

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 when the tool applies (airport or flight-number lookups) and notes the destination/language modifiers, but it never states when to prefer or avoid it versus siblings like search_route or get_timetable. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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