get_flight_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of information returned, which gives some transparency about the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe error behavior, or mention any prerequisites beyond having a flightId.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific flight') and then lists the key content categories without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and the main output categories. It lacks explicit statements about read-only behavior or invalid ID handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The schema already covers the sole parameter (flightId) with a clear description and example ('0', '1', '2'). The description adds no new parameter-level detail—it merely repeats the 'from search results' context. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific flight from search results.' It names specific content areas (connection info, aircraft type, baggage policy, fare rules), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights (list flights) and select_flight (select for booking).

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 phrase 'from search results' clearly indicates the tool should be used after obtaining a flight ID from search_flights. It provides context for when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_seat_map instead).

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