select_flight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions this 'begins the booking process', implying a state change or reservation initiation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this creates a temporary hold, requires payment, affects availability, has time limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 core action and purpose. Every word earns its place: 'select' (verb), 'outbound (and optionally return) flights' (resource), 'from search results' (source), 'to begin the booking process' (goal). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'select' to begin booking) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or dependencies. For a tool that likely changes system state in a booking workflow, more behavioral context is needed.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that flights come 'from search results' and that returnFlightId is for 'round trips', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('select outbound (and optionally return) flights') and resource ('from search results'), with a specific purpose ('to begin the booking process'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_flights' (which finds flights) and 'select_seats' (which picks seats), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all booking-related tools like 'checkout' or 'manage_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 description implies usage context by mentioning 'from search results' and 'to begin the booking process', suggesting it should follow 'search_flights' and precede other booking steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'checkout' or 'manage_booking', nor provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied search step.

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