mcp-southwest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'complete a flight booking' implies a write operation that likely creates a reservation and charges payment, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is an irreversible transaction, what permissions are required, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a payment and booking 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical sequencing guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complex payment and booking tool with 13 parameters (11 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides good purpose and usage guidance, it lacks critical behavioral context about what happens during execution (transaction processing, confirmation generation, error handling) and what the agent should expect as a result. The schema handles parameters well, but the overall context for this significant operation needs more disclosure.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide formatting examples beyond what's in schema descriptions, or clarify why certain fields are required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('complete a flight booking') and resource ('flight booking'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it should be used 'after selecting a flight with select_flight'. This provides clear differentiation from tools like 'book_with_points' or 'search_flights'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use after selecting a flight with select_flight'), providing clear sequencing guidance. This helps the agent understand this is a later step in the booking workflow, distinguishing it from initial search/selection tools and alternative booking methods like 'book_with_points'.

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