International flights

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

Well beyond the annotations, it discloses latency (10-20 seconds), the underlying mechanism (airlines answer one by one, at most 12 polls per call), default ordering (cheapest first), the returned fields, the fact that total_toman is the whole-group price, and that charter fares collapse to a single fare class. It also clarifies the tool is search-only and buying happens off-platform, which is important given openWorldHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line scope statement and an example immediately after, then packs return-trip, pricing, and latency notes into compact clauses. Density is high but slightly crowded by the parenthetical aside about cities Alibaba sells.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape (airline, flight numbers, times, stops, baggage, price per adult), price semantics, round-trip behavior, and latency expectations. What remains unaddressed is how results are truncated at the limit/poll cap or what an empty result looks like.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning on top by explaining that return_date produces a `return` leg on each fare and that THRALL expands to all Tehran airports. It leaves behavioral params like sort, limit, and cabin entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 plus scope: "Search international flights between Iran and abroad ... on one day," and gives a concrete example query. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from al_trains/al_buses/al_stays, but the parenthetical "(or any two cities Alibaba sells)" muddies the international qualifier, and the sibling al_flights is never named as the domestic counterpart.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("Use for 'flights from Tehran to Istanbul on 2026-11-16'"), tells the agent to pass return_date for round trips, to source city codes from al_cities with international=true, and to hand off purchasing to alibaba.ir. It stops short of explicitly excluding al_flights and al_flights_cheapest, so the domestic/summary siblings must be inferred.

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