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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: generic adapters may attach safe Tineo-owned CTA links, and a card with bookingLink=null is metadata only rather than a booking handoff or live inventory. This meaningfully clarifies what the output can and cannot do.

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?

Four compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded before the exclusion and the output caveats. Each sentence carries a distinct constraint, though the phrasing ('truthful implementation status', 'validated generic adapters') is denser than needed.

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 compensates by explaining the bookingLink=null case and CTA-link behavior. With all 11 parameters optional and fully schema-documented, plus annotations covering safety, the remaining gaps are minor and an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description references search intent (mapping loosely to searchTerm) and bookingLink semantics but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema. No parameter-specific value is added.

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 ('Return') and resource ('Tineo's travel-affiliate catalog') with the qualifier 'truthful implementation status'. It distinguishes itself from booking-link siblings by saying it is 'never for a link to a specific or previously searched travel result', so an agent can separate it from flight_booking_link/ground_transfer_booking_links. Slightly muddied by the abstract phrase 'truthful implementation status'.

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 an explicit use condition ('Use only for questions about supported affiliate programs') and an explicit exclusion ('never for a link to a specific or previously searched travel result'), which routes the agent toward the booking-link tools. It does not name the sibling tools directly, so the alternative identification is inferred rather than stated.

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