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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: settlement timing (24–72h), the meaning of an empty result ('no change observed yet'), and the incremental-polling model via the since cursor. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then invocation, then poll cadence and the empty-result caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the single paragraph is longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by describing the event record shape (offer reference, new/previous status, amount, cabin) and the empty-result semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the workflow relationship between sessionId/conversationId ('or') and how `since` is used across successive calls, adding meaning beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 and resource: an ordered log of bid-outcome events on a checked booking, and explicitly frames it against a sibling by saying it works 'without re-running a status check' (i.e., vs get_bid_status). It even enumerates the event types, so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 explicit when-to-use ('poll periodically', 'bids settle 24–72h before departure'), when-not ('instead of asking the traveler to check back'), and a named alternative ('subscribe via REST POST /api/v1/webhooks'). The sessionId/conversationId and since-cursor invocation path is spelled out.

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