list_flights

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: result ordering (departure time, earliest first), local pagination over a cached sync, the 1..200 limit bound, timezone semantics for date filters, and that details=true returns the full decoded record.

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-loads the resource and scope, then layers filtering, ordering, pagination and detail behavior in short declarative sentences. Dense but every sentence contributes; the final 'details=true' clause could have been folded in more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for an 11-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, three parameters ('when', 'archived', 'refresh') get no explanation at all, and the dependency on a prior account sync is only hinted at.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so for most parameters: mine_only semantics, date format and timezone, airport text-matching rules, limit range, offset-as-pagination, and details. It leaves 'when', 'archived' and 'refresh' unexplained, so it is strong but incomplete across all 11 params.

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 with scope: 'List this account's current flights, including archived history and manual flights', plus explicit exclusions (server deletion markers, other owners' records). It does not name the adjacent siblings (search_flights, get_flight, get_account_records), so an agent must infer the boundary, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the mention of a 'complete, cached, bodyless account sync' hints that a sync precedes this call but never says so or names sync_account/wait_for_sync. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance versus search_flights or get_flight.

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