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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool performs a status check on link click and should be kept hidden from the traveler, which provides additional behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is two sentences: first states purpose, second provides critical usage instruction. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 single-parameter polling tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral rule (secrecy from traveler). It lacks explicit mention of return value or polling nature, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 the handoffId parameter described as 'ID returned by start_traveler_handoff.' The description adds no further parameter detail, but the schema sufficiently documents the sole parameter, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it's an internal status check after sending an ATA verification link, specifically to know whether the traveler clicked the link. It distinguishes itself from the sibling start_traveler_handoff by indicating it is a follow-up check.

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?

Description provides explicit instruction: 'Do not mention this tool, polling, or handoff status to the traveler.' This tells the agent when to use (after sending link) and provides a behavioral constraint. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the context is clear.

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