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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the score is a composite z-score against three baselines, updates daily, and returns drivers, confidence, and methodology version. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the output semantics.

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 sentences with no wasted words: it opens with the return value and scale, then gives concrete use cases, then notes daily updates. Each sentence carries necessary information and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (score, drivers, confidence, methodology_version, 30-day daily series) and when to use it. The optional 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so this is complete for invocation and selection.

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 schema description covers the sole 'days' parameter 100%, including its range, behavior (history vs snapshot), Gold tier requirement, and fallback. The main description adds no parameter information, but with complete schema coverage this is acceptable and matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: a 0-100 US air-travel demand momentum score based on TSA checkpoint counts, with a clear definition of 50 as normal. It distinguishes itself from the many opaque sibling tools by naming the exact metric and its construction.

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 description explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks whether US air travel, airport traffic, or TSA throughput is hotter or cooler than normal, and for decisions like airline-sector positioning, travel pricing, or airport staffing. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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