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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a safe read operation. Description adds return field details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return details, followed by usage advice. No waste; every phrase adds value.

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?

Given 0 required params, 100% schema coverage, good annotations, and description that outlines output structure, the definition is complete. No further context needed.

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% with enum constraints and descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds context about return fields but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, so 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?

Description specifies 'List the travel operators that offer upgrade programs' with optional filters and enumerates returned fields (name, IATA/code, vertical, region, products). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_partner_info (specific partner details) and ask_upgrade_agent (conversational).

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?

States 'Use this to build travel workflows or answer which airlines/cruise lines offer upgrades,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when to prefer alternatives like get_partner_info.

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