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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: it is read-only, stores no personal data, and explicitly where the traveler must act personally. This provides additional transparency about side effects and data handling that the annotations do not cover.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no filler, each sentence adds value (scope, examples, output contents, behavioral constraints). Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the scope, use cases, and output contents thoroughly. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but the lack of an output schema and the read-only nature make the description sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The schema already has high coverage (100%) with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool is for reference and potentially what kind of information is retrieved (official site, channels, fees, rules), but does not add new per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is exceeded slightly because it clarifies the overall intent and what the output encompasses.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing reference information for tasks on a traveler's own booking on travel websites. It lists specific examples (changing/cancelling, online check-in, boarding pass, etc.) and what the output includes, effectively distinguishing it from any potential sibling by focusing on reference information rather than action.

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?

The description implicitly communicates when to use this tool: when a task relates to a traveler's own booking on a travel website, and it enumerates the task types (changing, cancelling, check-in, etc.). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but since there are no sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient for the context.

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