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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the separate authorization grant required, the exact scoping (this order, original caller), that status-only access does not qualify, and what is explicitly withheld (no traveler identity, PNR, payment, or change authority). That data-minimization disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the constraints. The conditional phrasing in sentence one slightly delays the core statement but 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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the authorization model and the exclusion scope well. The remaining gap is the undefined handoff_id and only a partial sense of what the response contains.

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 0% and the single required parameter handoff_id is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what a handoff id is, where it comes from (presumably evuun_prepare_travel_handoff), or how the strict pattern/maxLength constrain it.

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 ('Read the original flight itinerary'), which is more concrete than the name alone. It does not differentiate from siblings such as evuun_search_travel_changes or evuun_get_travel_progress, and the name/description tension ('change context' vs 'original itinerary') leaves mild ambiguity about the exact payload.

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 a hard precondition for use: the owner must separately grant finite change-proposal permission for this exact order and original caller, and status-only access is explicitly insufficient. This is a clear gate, but it never names an alternative tool for agents who lack that permission.

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