get_return_flights

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the tool's role in a workflow and the token linkage, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether selecting a flight locks anything), error cases, or any read-only guarantee. While the tool appears read-only, the description does not explicitly state safety or lack of mutations.

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 concise and well-structured, with three sentences that first state the main action, then explain the token usage, and finally link to the output's usability. There is no filler or redundant information, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description integrates the tool into the broader journey (search_flights → get_return_flights → get_booking_options). It explains what the return options contain (booking_token) and how to use them. Missing details like max_results semantics or error handling, but these are minor for the overall workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains departure_token (source and purpose), but does not mention max_results at all. The schema shows max_results has a default and is optional, but the description adds no insight into its behavior or acceptable values. Partial compensation.

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 function as 'List the next set of options after selecting a flight,' specifying the verb (list), resource (options), and context (after flight selection). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the token flow from search_flights and search_multi_city, and how booking_token connects to get_booking_options.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use it with a departure_token from a round-trip search_flights result to see return options, or from a multi-city result to advance to the next leg. It also notes that the returned booking_token is usable with get_booking_options, indicating follow-up actions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the contextual instructions are strong.

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