post_flights_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: multi-provider aggregation, SSE streaming via Accept header or the /stream path, and that per-leg filters override global filters. It does not mention rate limits or provider-specific quirks, keeping it short of a 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?

Markdown headers give good structure and the Overview is front-loaded, but the required parameters (legs, adults, currency) are restated across Overview, Key Features, and Quick Start, and the 'What You Get' section partially duplicates what the schema already implies. It is informative but longer than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so with a 'What You Get' section covering offers, itineraries, and price breakdowns. Combined with streaming and filter behavior, it is nearly complete for an 11-parameter tool, missing only error/empty-result behavior to reach a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining that legs must be non-empty, that direction accepts OUTBOUND/INBOUND, and that per-leg filters override global ones. The explicit exclusion of top-level origin/destination/departureDate/returnDate adds meaning beyond the schema by steering agents away from invalid shapes.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search for available flights with real-time pricing from multiple providers.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_hotels_rates and get_flights_bookings, and the 'Not supported' note rules out common misuses. An agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

'When to Use' explicitly enumerates listings, one-way/round-trip/multi-city, filtering, and streaming. The 'Not supported' section gives a clear negative condition (no top-level origin/destination) and the Quick Start gives concrete input shapes, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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