search_cash_round_trip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or whether the search is real-time. Output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide critical details about parameters or usage, making it insufficiently informative for the agent.

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 the tool has 9 parameters (4 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks context on required inputs, optional parameters, or any edge cases. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 0%, yet the tool description mentions no parameter details (e.g., required fields origin, destination, dates). The agent gets no help understanding parameter meaning or format beyond the schema structure.

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 it is a cash-fare round-trip search using Google Flights (fli), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_awards and search_cash_one_way. However, 'Cash-fare' could be misinterpreted, and the description adds little beyond the name.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for paid flights rather than awards, or that it differs from one-way searches. Context from sibling names implies this, but the description lacks direct usage advice.

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