search_flights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses defaults (Business class, Star Alliance, EUR pricing) that an agent could not infer. However it omits result volume, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are cached/live — meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before defaults and routing guidance. Efficient, though the sentence fragments read slightly clipped rather than polished.

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 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and defaults but says nothing about the shape, ordering, or volume of results returned. Adequate to invoke correctly, but incomplete about what comes back.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with IATA formats, date formats, cabin mapping and stop semantics. The description only restates the default cabin/alliance, adding no syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 for one-way or round-trip flights') and adds scope detail (default cabin, alliance, currency). The 'simple A→B or A→B→A' clause hints at the distinction from search_multi_city without naming it, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clear usage context ('Use for simple A→B or A→B→A searches'), which implies the multi-city sibling should be used otherwise. It stops short of naming search_multi_city or stating exclusions explicitly, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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