search_flights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds only the trip-shape and sort behavior, disclosing nothing about result limits (max_results defaults to 10, caps at 30), caching, or availability that would otherwise be invisible.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one clean sentence, and the second line is short. The sort_by line is slightly cryptic in form (bare key: values) but contains no wasted prose.

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 12-parameter tool with just 42% schema coverage, the description should carry more weight, especially on passenger-composition semantics and result caps. It does not explain the max_stops/max_results tradeoffs beyond the schema text, nor how it relates to the three sibling search tools; the output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

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 only 42% of 12 parameters. The description usefully enumerates the sort_by values ('price' default, 'duration', 'departure'), which the schema leaves as a bare string, but it says nothing about adults/children/infants, cabin, currency, or max_results, leaving most parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('search flights between two airports on a given date') and clarifies the supported trip shapes (one-way/round-trip). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like find_cheapest_dates or compare_airports, so an agent still has to infer which search entry point applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns this searches a single origin-destination pair on a date, and the sort_by hint suggests ranking behavior. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing is given (e.g., use find_cheapest_dates to scan a window).

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