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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: no seat map or payment happens here, and booking hands off to Paytm Checkin, which tells the agent not to attempt a booking flow in this tool.

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?

Front-loads what the sheet shows, then usage, then required/optional params, then scope limits. It is dense but each clause carries information; the CTA enumeration is slightly list-heavy for a description.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers the sourcing path (search_buses tripRef), the required vs optional inputs, and the downstream booking boundary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 3-baseline applies, and the description earns above it by adding origin and matching semantics: trip_ref is 'from the prior search_buses card, matched exactly' and summary/booking_url are described as forwarded values from that card rather than free-form input.

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 — 'Shows the Bus Details sheet for one trip from search_buses' — and enumerates the payload (amenities, boarding/dropping points, cancellation slabs, rating, CTA). This clearly distinguishes it from search_buses and get_flight_details in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('source for amenities, boarding/dropping points, cancellation policy, or details for a specific bus, including a tap on a bus card in the widget') and gives a clarifying exclusion ('without a new search_buses call'). It also bounds scope with 'No seat map or payment in chat'.

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