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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: wait_seconds blocks until the booking changes, up to 50 seconds, and returns as soon as the traveller opens, pays, or cancels. It does not explain timeout behavior or returned states, but the blocking semantics are clearly disclosed.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the most actionable usage detail. The final clause ('without being told') is slightly awkward, but the definition is compact and has no filler.

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 simple two-parameter status tool with annotations, the description covers purpose and wait behavior. However, with no output schema it should say more about the states returned (e.g., pending, paid, cancelled) and what happens if wait_seconds times out without a change.

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 50%: wait_seconds has a schema description, and the tool description reinforces its meaning and timing ('answers the moment they open it, pay or cancel'). The required taskId has no description in either place, and the description only implies it comes from book_trip rather than explicitly saying so.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('current state of a Vuelo booking') and ties it to book_trip as the originating call. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_booking_progress, leaving ambiguity about which status/progress tool to pick.

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?

It gives useful timing guidance for wait_seconds ('straight after the traveller has the link') so the agent knows when to poll. But it never states when to use this versus get_booking_progress or find_my_booking, and gives no when-not conditions.

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