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

The description states 'starts a claim', implying the tool modifies state (writes) by initiating a claim process. However, annotations include readOnlyHint: true, indicating the tool is read-only and does not mutate state. This is a clear contradiction.

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; the first states purpose and key benefit, the second lists usage conditions. No redundant information. Front-loaded with critical details.

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?

While the description covers purpose and conditions, it lacks details on output/return values (no output schema). The contradiction with annotations undermines trust. Some expected details (e.g., compensation amount limits) are mentioned but overall incomplete for agent decision-making.

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% (both parameters documented). The description adds context by listing example disruptions mapping to the 'issue' enum, but does not provide significant new detail beyond the schema.

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 checks flight compensation eligibility and starts a claim, with specific verb 'checks' and resource 'flight compensation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (travel booking tools) by listing specific disruption types.

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 lists when to use: delays (3+ hours), cancellations, denied boarding, missed connections, luggage issues, and flights up to 3 years ago. It also notes 'Free eligibility check, no-win-no-fee claim handling'.

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