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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the 10-seated-traveller eligibility rule, the 15-minute token lifetime, and the explicit assurance that nothing is dispatched. It omits what happens after the token expires or whether the token is the handoff to the write step.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the eligibility condition and no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded where an agent will read them. Nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the token semantics. Given 20 parameters at full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition is sufficient, though the handoff to egf_request_group_quote remains unstated.

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 the schema already documents all 20 parameters, including the infant-lap rule and perpendicular fields like youths_ages. The description only adds the aggregate '10 or more seated travellers' rule, which is a modest semantic gain over the schema baseline.

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 (checks/prepares) and resource (group flight enquiry) plus the key scope condition (10 or more seated travellers) and the output (a brief plus confirmation_token). The closing 'Nothing is sent' implicitly separates it from the write siblings egf_request_group_quote and egf_send_flight_offer, but no sibling is named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 10+ seated-traveller threshold and 'nothing is sent' suggest this is the dry-run step before egf_request_group_quote, but the description never says when to use it versus that sibling or what to do with the token. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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