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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether authentication is required, pagination behavior, or what 'sources' refers to.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple read-only catalogue tool, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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 low-complexity, read-only catalogue with rich annotations and no required parameters, the description is minimally viable. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools like 'travel_check' or what the optional query object can contain, leaving gaps for an agent selecting between similar tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The single optional 'query' object is documented generically in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning about accepted query keys or filtering capabilities.

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 verb ('List') and a resource ('Travel Pass checks and sources'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'checks and sources' is vague and does not distinguish this catalogue tool from the sibling 'travel_check' or clarify what a 'source' means.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'travel_check' or other catalogue tools. The description gives no context, exclusions, or routing information.

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