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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: results are scoped to 'your permitted sharing level', the ref is opaque and not a browser path, and the trip can still be in a scheduled-retry state. 'Effects: None' largely restates readOnlyHint, but the polling and sharing-scope semantics are net-new.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose first, then link-handling, polling, and effects. Dense but no filler; some phrasing ('evidence-based planning_progress') is jargon-heavy enough to cost a little clarity.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it names the key fields (trip_url, planning_progress) and terminal states (ready, failed, unknown). A brief note on what the payload looks like beyond those two fields would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description earns the extra point by clarifying that the opaque trp_ reference is a tool input distinct from the browser-facing trip_url returned in the payload – a distinction the schema does not make.

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 ('Reads a saved trip') plus the payload it returns (trip_url, planning_progress), which separates it from write tools like update_trip and plan_trip. It never names the nearest sibling (anywayr_list_trips) explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives concrete operational conditions: poll bounded, stop on ready/failed/unknown, a scheduled retry still counts as planning, and hand back the saved link. It nonetheless never states the entry condition for choosing this tool over anywayr_list_trips or anywayr_get_operation.

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