Search and filter by policy in one step

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral context: it performs a search, applies policy filtering, and returns a summary. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior if the policy file is missing.

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 description is a single informative sentence that packs key details. It is front-loaded but could be improved with structured bullet points. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers core functionality but lacks return value structure details. It mentions a summary of rejections but no specifics. Sibling differentiation is absent, leaving some gaps.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add significant parameter details beyond the schema, such as mentioning policyPath. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does moderate work.

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 clearly states it searches Google Flights, evaluates against a policy file, returns only compliant options with a rejection summary, sorted by price. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from siblings like search_flights.

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?

The description implies usage when policy compliance is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like search_flights and check_policy suggest alternatives, but no comparison is provided.

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