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

Annotations already mark it read-only; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the data source (TSA checkpoint volumes), the calculation baseline (30-day vs 365-day mean), weekly update cadence, and the response components. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core return value, followed by concrete use cases and update frequency. Parenthetical details add precision without wordiness, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates all major response components (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers, recovery_ratio, means, daily count) and specifies the optional history behavior via the schema. This is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The single optional `days` parameter is fully described in the schema, including range, optionality, and Gold tier requirement, so the description does not need to add more. The tool description provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Returns a 0-100 US air-travel recovery index...' and names the source, calculation method, and returned fields. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the many siblings even without individual sibling descriptions.

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 explicitly lists triggering user requests ('air travel demand, TSA throughput, passenger volumes, airport traffic, or travel recovery') and a business context ('timing dynamic pricing and promotions'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the positive use-case guidance is concrete and actionable.

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