Flight and hotel tours

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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world; the description adds currency (Toman), that flights are included in price, what `price_total` aggregates across adults, that only some cities sell tours, and the crucial interpretation of empty results (seats full) with a concrete recovery path. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot provide.

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?

Two compact paragraphs: purpose and mode behavior first, then the empty-result edge case. Every sentence carries information an agent could not get from the schema, and no sentence is filler.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing both result shapes (hotel list with cheapest package, or one hotel's room/meal/flight packages), the pricing units, and the failure mode. Nothing needed to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `hotel` changes the entire response shape, and `adults` is described as travelling together sharing one room, which explains why both total and per-person prices appear. Dates, sorting, and limits are left to the schema.

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 first sentence names the resource (flight-plus-hotel tour packages) and states the two distinct modes: city-level hotel listing vs. single-hotel package listing with flight times. This is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can act on without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete natural-language example ('Tehran to Mashhad for 2 nights with the flight included') and explains the mode switch via the `hotel` parameter, plus a fallback to eg_tour_calendar when results are empty. It does not explicitly say when to prefer eg_hotel or eg_deals over this tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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