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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses the signed-in requirement and phase-dependent behavior, including current work during the build and a booking link when ready. It omits operational details such as polling expectations and handling of failed or expired builds.

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 purpose and required identifier are front-loaded, and the remaining details are relevant to understanding the result. However, the long, densely packed first sentence would be easier to scan if split into lifecycle stages or bullets.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema, it provides strong lifecycle, result, and authentication context. The main remaining gap is guidance for managing the asynchronous build, particularly polling and unsuccessful terminal states.

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%, and buildId already documents both its origin and UUID format. The description's phrase 'by its build id' adds no meaningful parameter guidance beyond that schema.

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?

Clearly defines a trip-build status lookup keyed by build ID, with distinct in-progress and ready states. This build-specific scope distinguishes it from plan_trip and my_trips without requiring their schemas.

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 build-ID prerequisite and descriptions of the building and ready phases make the calling context clear. It does not explicitly say to use it after plan_trip or when my_trips would be the better alternative.

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