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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are cheapest-first, each offer_id is valid for only 30 minutes, and results are paginated. It does not mention rate limits or caching, keeping it short of a 5.

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 waste: the first front-loads purpose and result shape, the second handles pagination. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes them usefully alongside the critical 30-minute offer_id validity and pagination contract. Only the absence of routing guidance to sibling tools leaves a gap.

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, but the description adds real value by explaining that the cursor must be replayed with the same route and dates — a constraint the schema's cursor text does not convey. It still adds nothing on limit or passengers 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?

States a specific verb (Searches), resource (live public fares), and scope (1 to 9 travellers), plus what is returned (per-person prices, carriers, stops). An agent can immediately tell this is the search entry point among siblings like egf_get_offer and egf_prepare_flight_offer.

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 clear pagination usage (pass next_cursor back as cursor with the same route/dates) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as egf_prepare_group_quote for parties larger than 9 or egf_get_offer to fet up an offer. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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