searchFlightItineraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching for 'purchasable flight options and the lowest price', which implies read-only querying, but does not address critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of flights, pricing details). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for purchasable flight options and the lowest price') followed by parameter details. The parenthetical examples are relevant but slightly lengthen the text. Overall, it is well-structured with no wasted 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 the complexity of flight search (multiple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format (e.g., what data is returned), error conditions, or behavioral constraints like pagination or availability. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively in practice.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., patterns, examples). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the three-letter code examples (BJS, SHA, etc.) and mentioning the departure date, but does not provide additional semantic context or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search for purchasable flight options and the lowest price') and identifies the key resources (departure city, arrival city, departure date). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'searchFlightsByDepArr' by emphasizing price comparison and purchasability, which is not mentioned in other tool names.

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 through its parameter examples (e.g., BJS for Beijing), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchFlightsByDepArr'. It provides some context for date handling (referring to 'getTodayDate' tool), but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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