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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the tool's informational scope (application-enforced model, not transactions/private data) and does not contradict any annotation. This goes slightly beyond what the structured fields alone convey.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed immediately by a necessary exclusion. There is no filler or repeated schema information, so every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what it provides and when to avoid it. An agent needs nothing else to invoke it correctly, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema fully documents that (100% coverage). With no parameters, the description has no parameter semantics to add, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 states a concrete action context: describing FlightSweeper's application-enforced policy, revocation, and idempotency model. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming a specific domain (policy/revocation/idempotency) and adds a boundary statement ('Do not use it for real travel transactions or private data'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_challenge_capabilities and get_flight_tool_contracts.

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 gives an explicit positive trigger ('when an agent needs to describe...') and a clear negative constraint ('Do not use it for real travel transactions or private data'). It does not name alternative sibling tools, which prevents a 5, but the guidance is unambiguous for a simple informational tool.

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