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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: it never restarts the underlying work, it declares 'Effects: None', and it explains that a planning operation completes when its trip is saved and that the result carries the trip link.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the processing/reconciling trigger. The completion semantics for planning operations earn their place, though the parenthetical and the trip-link clause make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what a planning result contains (the trip link) and confirms the call has no side effects. Pagination via cursor is left entirely to the schema, a minor gap but not blocking for a status-check tool.

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 both operation_ref and cursor are already documented with their prefixes and provenance, which sets the baseline at 3. The description implies operation_ref semantics ('status of an earlier command') but adds no new syntax or format detail, and never touches the cursor/paging parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it reads the status of an earlier command that returned processing or reconciling, with concrete examples (a checkout or booking still being confirmed). It also explicitly separates itself from anywayr_get_trip for itinerary progress, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 'when' is clearly stated: use it for a command that came back processing or reconciling. It routes itinerary reads to anywayr_get_trip and clarifies that this tool never restarts the work. It stops short of an explicit when-not boundary (e.g., what to do once the operation completes), but the context is otherwise clear.

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