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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-booking nature, that results are ranked, and that option_id feeds affiliate linking. It omits whether calls are rate-limited, whether prices are live/cached, auth requirements, and how long option_ids remain valid before needing a hold.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the non-booking caveat. Zero filler and every clause carries signal.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on return-value shape beyond 'ranked options with option_id' and omits the search-to-book handoff workflow. It is adequate to identify the tool but not fully sufficient to invoke it confidently in a multi-step trip flow.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all eight parameters including session_id threading and the cabin_class enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. date formats, session reuse) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Metasearch of commercial passenger flights globally') and distinguishes itself from transactional siblings by explicitly saying it does not book directly. An agent can tell it apart from geo360_book_offer and geo360_hold_offer immediately.

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 implies a search-first workflow by noting option_id is 'ready for affiliate deep-link generation', which gestures at geo360_generate_affiliate_link, and it rules out booking. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus geo360_book_offer/geo360_hold_offer, nor any prerequisites or session_id continuity guidance.

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