search_flights

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It declares that only current/near-term real-time flights are returned, excludes future/historical flights and prices, and warns about unfiltered calls. This sufficiently discloses the tool's behavioral constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key caveats in a clear 'IMPORTANT' block, then a structured 'Args' list. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words. The organization aids quick comprehension.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers scope, limitations, parameter details, usage best practices, and sibling alternatives. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 0%, so the description must and does compensate by explaining each parameter: origin/destination as 3-letter IATA codes, max_results range/default, airline_name as optional name, and flight_status with enumerated allowed values. The filter requirement is also clarified.

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 'Search current/live flights' and specifies filtering by route, airline, or status. It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_flight_status' by noting the scope and directing specific status queries to that tool.

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 explicit when-to-use (current/near-term real-time flights), when-not-to-use (future dates, historical, prices), and recommends the alternative 'get_flight_status' for specific flight status. It also advises providing at least one filter to avoid quota waste.

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