get_flight_itinerary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns ICAO codes, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what happens on invalid flight numbers (e.g., error handling, null results). This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second clarifies the return format (ICAO codes). No superfluous words, though the second sentence partially repeats the first.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values (ICAO airport codes) but fails to specify if other itinerary details are included, how errors are conveyed, or any pagination/limitation. For a simple retrieval with one parameter, it is minimally adequate but lacking completeness.

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 to the single parameter 'flight_number'. It merely says 'for a specific flight number' without specifying format, constraints, or examples. This adds little value over the schema.

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 retrieves flight itinerary information for a specific flight number, including departure and arrival ICAO airport codes. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'flight itinerary information' are specific, and the scope is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'add_flight' and 'list_flights', so it lacks full comparative clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_flight' or 'list_flights'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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