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 describes the type of information returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication (implied by context but not stated), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key details without waste. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and included information types.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving detailed flight info), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what information is returned but lacks details on behavior, authentication, or output structure, leaving room for improvement to fully guide an agent.

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 description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'flightId' parameter. The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like valid ID ranges or examples beyond 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific flight'), specifying what information is retrieved (aircraft type, layover details, baggage policy, fare rules). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_flight_status' (status only) or 'search_flights' (multiple flights), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 usage by mentioning 'flight result ID from search_flights', suggesting it should be used after a search to get details for a specific result. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_booking' or 'get_flight_status', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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