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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: it operates for this MCP session, uses the property's configured verification method, and has no booking creation side effects. However, it does not explain what happens when emailConfirmedByTraveler is false or what the verification flow entails, and the statement about using the property's configured method is ambiguous given the optional method enum in the schema.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: when to call, what it does, and what it does not do.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 3 required fields, no output schema, and sibling tools like verify_traveler_code, this description is undersized. It does not explain return behavior, what starting verification actually does for the traveler, how method interacts with the configured verification method, or what follow-up call is expected next. An agent cannot fully predict the result of invoking this tool.

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 only 13%, and the description does not compensate. It clarifies emailConfirmedByTraveler by tying it to traveler email confirmation, but leaves method, guestName, guestEmail, guestPhone, agentName, agentProvider, and propertyToken semantically unsupported. The phrase 'uses the property's configured verification method' actually conflicts with the schema's optional method enum, which needs explanation.

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 a specific action—starting traveler verification for the MCP session after email confirmation—and distinguishes itself from booking/quote creation with an explicit negative list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like verify_traveler_code or start_traveler_handoff, and the word 'general' is somewhat vague.

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 precondition ('after the traveler confirms their email address') and explicit exclusions ('does not create a quote, enquiry, hold, or booking'). It does not directly name sibling alternatives such as verify_traveler_code or get_traveler_verification_status, which would make the routing fully explicit.

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