obilet_flight_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact: this is a derived summary and per-flight detail is unavailable due to a server-side breakage. It also describes the aggregate return shape. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or expected latency, which is why it falls short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter semantics, then the critical limitation note — a sensible ordering with little waste. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a top score.

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 3-required-param aggregate tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the major v1 limitation. The one remaining gap an agent might hit is how to obtain valid location ids, which is only implied by "bus location ids".

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 coverage is 0% (bare titles only), so the description must compensate, and it does: origin_id/destination_id are identified as bus location ids covering the same city pair, and date is pinned to YYYY-MM-DD. That resolves the main ambiguity an agent would face — that despite being a flight tool, the ids are bus-domain identifiers.

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?

States a specific resource and scope up front: "Flight summary for a route + date" with the exact fields returned (counts, min/max price, durations, departures, direct flag, airlines). The parenthetical that it comes from the bus-journeys response distinguishes it from obilet_search_bus_journeys and obilet_journey_detail, so an agent can tell what it is without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context by naming the city-pair scope and warning that individual flight listings are NOT available in v1 because the async endpoint is broken — that prevents a whole class of wrong attempts. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. "use obilet_search_bus_journeys for the raw data") or saying the location ids must first come from obilet_search_locations, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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