search_multi_city

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable traits: leg-by-leg sequencing, the departure_token handoff, and a per-leg API cost. However, it says nothing about the read-only/non-destructive nature, rate limits, or error behavior for a tool that consumes API quota — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Four tight sentences: purpose, workflow, cost, and defaults — all front-loaded with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete enough for the core workflow: it explains the multi-step leg fetching and token reuse, which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone. Minor gaps remain (safety profile, rate limits) but no output schema exists to require return-value explanation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents legs (IATA codes, YYYY-MM-DD dates, 2-5 items), airlines, travel_class, and departure_token. The description only restates defaults (Business class, Star Alliance, EUR), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 multi-city/multi-leg flights') with a scope constraint (2-5 legs) and explicitly positions itself as 'Primary tool for complex itineraries,' distinguishing it from the simpler search_flights sibling.

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?

Clearly explains the workflow ('Returns Leg 1 options first — use departure_token from results to fetch subsequent legs') and the cost model ('Each leg costs 1 API search'), giving strong context for when and how to use it. It doesn't name search_flights as the alternative for simple one-way/round-trip itineraries, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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