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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating the tool is safe and open-ended. The description adds context that it is for general questions and is not booking-specific, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions; additional context about informational-only scope is helpful but not extensive beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.

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 adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. Given the small parameter count and high schema coverage, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. Could mention limitations like no real-time data, but not necessary for completeness.

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 parameters (askedBy, question, conversationId) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool answers general travel-upgrade questions, lists specific topics (how bid/instant/points upgrades work, eligibility, strategy, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from booking-specific tools like start_eligibility_check. The purpose is specific and leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly says to use this for informational questions only and identifies start_eligibility_check as the preferred tool for checking a specific booking, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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