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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires an affiliate Bearer token, scopes results strictly to the caller's token, and describes the return fields (reference, outcome stage, client_reference). 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?

Three dense sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second adds auth and scope constraints, the third summarizes the valuable output fields. No filler; every sentence earns its place and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, auth, scope, ordering, and output contents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and limit/offset already include defaults, max values, and pagination semantics. The description adds contextual ordering ('newest first') but does not need to explain the parameters further, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the charter enquiries (trips) attributed to YOUR OWN affiliate token'), adds ordering ('newest first'), and clearly differentiates the tool by ownership scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_confirmation_status or search_empty_legs.

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 states the intended use case ('match enquiries that arrived via your website tracking link'), names the practical alternative being avoided ('without going through the affiliate dashboard'), and gives an explicit exclusion ('you cannot list another affiliate's enquiries'). It also states the auth prerequisite ('Requires an affiliate Bearer token').

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