Domestic flights

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: fares repeat per flight across fare classes, prices are quoted in Toman per adult, and return_date/refund_rules change the result shape by adding `returning` and `refund_penalties` lists. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for limit or any rate/quota constraints.

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 core action and scope come first, followed by pricing/duplication caveats and then sibling routing, which is the right ordering. The parenthetical about `child_price_toman` and `infant_price_toman` is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly, but nothing is wasteful enough to cut.

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 an 11-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back at a field level, how optional parameters alter the response, and where to go for other cases. The only real gap is that the exact response envelope and pagination behavior are left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the *effect* of parameters on the response rather than just restating them — return_date adds a `returning` list, refund_rules adds `refund_penalties` per fare, and the passenger counts are for group pricing in Toman. It also hints that repeated rows represent distinct fare classes, which the schema does not say.

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 verb and resource: "Search domestic flights between two Iranian airports on one day", then enumerates returned fields (airline, flight number, times, fare, seats). It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by the word "domestic" and by naming al_flights_international for foreign routes.

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?

Provides a concrete usage example ("flights from Tehran to Shiraz on 2026-11-12") and explicit routing rules to alternatives: use al_flights_cheapest for other days and al_flights_international for flights abroad. It also states which optional parameters to set for round trips, refund tables, and groups.

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