Find Flights MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., flight options, prices). For a complex search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence ('Search for multi-city flights.'). It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core function.

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's complexity (multi-city flight search with 1 parameter containing nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage, behavior, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify purpose. For a search tool with rich schema but no annotations, more guidance is needed.

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%, but the input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Flight segments', 'Departure date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for the 0% coverage with any additional context.

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 'Search for multi-city flights' states the basic action (search) and resource (multi-city flights), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'search_flights'. It doesn't specify what 'search' entails (e.g., finding available flights, prices, routes) or how multi-city differs from other flight types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus 'search_flights' or 'get_offer_details'. The description implies usage for multi-city flights but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints (e.g., minimum segments), or alternatives. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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