search_flights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but omits details on rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or error handling. The result_limit parameter exists but is not mentioned in terms of 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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and a critical usage constraint. No superfluous words.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It lists types of returned info but does not describe output structure, pagination, error handling, or how constraints affect results, leaving the agent with uncertainties.

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 55% (moderate). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given coverage and lack of additional param info.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search real flight options') and explicitly lists the types of information returned (flight inventory, prices, carriers, durations, stops, booking links). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_hotels'.

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 provides a clear usage context (searching real flights) and includes an important constraint ('Only recommend flights returned by this tool; do not invent flights'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the obvious sibling differentiation.

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