getFlightTransferInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the date format requirement (YYYY-MM-DD), the rule about using 'getTodayDate' for today's date, and the IATA code requirement. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what 'flight transfer info' specifically includes.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides format requirements, and the third gives important usage rules. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more clearly.

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 a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic usage rules and format requirements but lacks details about what 'flight transfer info' returns, error handling, or how this differs from sibling flight search tools. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which it doesn't fully meet.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the date format and IATA code requirements, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about what 'flight transfer info' means or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get flight transfer info by departure city and arrival city and departure date.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('flight transfer info'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchFlightItineraries' or 'searchFlightsByDepArr' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides some usage guidance: it mentions using 'getTodayDate' for today's date instead of hardcoding, which is a specific context rule. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchFlightsByDepArr' or 'searchFlightItineraries', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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