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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that parsing produces 'proposed' segments and saves nothing, which is mildly redundant with the read-only hint but clarifies the preview nature. It does not add deeper behavioral context like rate limits, error behavior, or output format.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The purpose and non-persistence are front-loaded, followed by a clear usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and when to use it, and the input schema is fully described. With no output schema, it would be slightly more complete if it described the shape or fields of the returned segment previews, but the core need is met.

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 input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including the 90-second parse limit. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('pasted travel confirmation text') and clarifies the output ('proposed itinerary segments') and the key constraint ('without saving anything'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from segment_create by being a non-persistent preview, so an agent can tell it apart from creation tools without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a clear usage trigger: 'Use this before creating segments from copied email, PDF, or booking text.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. However, it does not name a specific alternative (e.g., segment_create) or say when not to use it, leaving minor inference to the agent.

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