search_flights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by sibling 'login' tool), rate limits, whether results are cached/live, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond 'maxResults'. The description is minimally adequate but lacks important operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: first sentence defines purpose and key parameters, second sentence specifies return values. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. No redundant or verbose language.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers basic purpose and return types but lacks context about authentication (implied by 'login' sibling), result format details, error handling, or operational constraints. The description should provide more guidance given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by mentioning origin, destination, and travel dates as key parameters, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'returnDate' optionality) or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given comprehensive schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search for Delta flights'), the resource ('flights'), and key parameters ('by origin, destination, and travel dates'). It distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools like 'get_flight_details' or 'get_flight_status' by emphasizing comprehensive flight search with availability and pricing.

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 for finding available flights with pricing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_flight_details' for specific flights or 'select_flight' for booking. It mentions returning flight information but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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