searchFlightsByNumber

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 adds some useful context about date handling requirements (using getTodayDate for today's date) and airport code format. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like what happens if no flights are found, whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description provides some operational constraints but misses key behavioral traits.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: format examples, optional parameters, date format, and important usage rule. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by grouping related 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 search tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic operation and some constraints, but doesn't explain what the tool returns (no output schema) or address potential error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured output information, the description should do more to compensate.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the flight number format example and mentions that dep/arr are optional. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or edge cases not covered in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Search flights by flight number and date.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('flights'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchFlightsByDepArr' or 'searchFlightItineraries' beyond the 'by flight number' aspect. The description is specific about what it searches by, but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when searching by flight number and date. It explicitly mentions an alternative tool ('getTodayDate') for obtaining today's date, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus other flight search siblings like 'searchFlightsByDepArr' or 'searchFlightItineraries'.

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