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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - it does not say what the flow mutates, whether it is safe to re-run, or what it returns, and calling it a "demo flow" without explanation leaves side effects ambiguous.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, front-loading the verb and the target scenario. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than from tight editing.

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 non-read-only, non-idempotent tool with an opaque body parameter, an external contract reference, and no output schema, the description should explain what the flow does and what the caller must supply. It leaves both the request contract and the result semantics entirely to outside resources.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description says nothing about the request body. Worth noting the single body param's schema text only defers to an external "AffixIO OpenAPI schema resource" rather than documenting shape or fields, so neither source is self-contained.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ("Run the Dover Strait eligibility and fuel calculation demo flow"), so an agent knows roughly what it triggers. However, "demo flow" is never unpacked - it is unclear whether this computes an eligibility result, returns fuel figures, or just exercises a sample pipeline - and nothing distinguishes it from related fuel tools like fuel_prices or fuel_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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling fuel/catalogue/check tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word "demo" hints at a non-production use case, but the description never says so explicitly.

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