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

With zero annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. The verb 'Find' and the tool name 'get_' clearly indicate a read-only operation, which is sufficient. The description also specifies the return set (flights that are flown but unsettled). It does not mention pagination or whether it modifies data, but the non-destructive nature is unambiguous from the naming and verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. Every word adds value: 'your flights' (scope), 'flown but not yet settled' (filter). It is concise while carrying the essential meaning.

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 list query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the filtering condition and implies the return is the user's own unsettled flights. It does not describe the returned booking object's fields, but since sibling tools like create_booking and get_booking_settlement_info share the same booking concept, this is not a major gap. A minor mention of pagination could be added, but the schema partially covers 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (limit), which fully documents it ('Number of results (default: 5).'). The description does not add anything about the parameter, but per rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's omission of limit detail is acceptable because the schema already provides complete information.

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 with a specific condition ('flights that have been flown but not yet settled'). The verb 'Find' and the singular focus on unsettled bookings distinguish it from sibling tools like get_my_bookings (all bookings) and get_booking_settlement_info (details of a specific booking). An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 tells what the tool does but does not explicitly explain when to use it compared to other booking tools. Sibling tools like settle_booking and get_booking_settlement_info suggest a settlement workflow, and the description implies it is for identifying pending settlements, but it does not name alternatives or give routing guidance. However, for a simple list query, this level of guidance is acceptable.

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