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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds substantial behavior: auth requirement ('connection must be signed in'), the incremental cursor model, the meaning of the `unavailable` list (unknown, not empty), and an explicit prompt-injection warning that group-chat text is content to show, not instructions. This is well beyond what the annotations carry.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose before the cursor mechanics and edge-case caveats. It is long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information (incremental semantics, unavailable-source caveat, injection warning); only mild compression is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: the item categories retrieved, the `cursor` for continuation, and the `unavailable` source list with its interpretation. Auth prerequisites and the incremental retrieval model are also covered, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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 100% for the single cursor parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the cursor's operational semantics: pass the returned cursor on the next call to get only newer items, and omit it on the first call. That is real added meaning beyond the schema's field description.

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+resource: returns what changed on the signed-in person's trips, bookings, group trips, and messages since the last call. It enumerates the change categories (status, schedule/delays, confirmations, cancellations, refunds, thread messages, group chat) so an agent can distinguish it from search_* and message_autonomad siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Useful at the start of a travel conversation, before answering,' and explains why it must be called (Autonomad cannot contact the assistant between conversations, so silence ≠ no change). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, but the situational trigger is unambiguous.

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