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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description explains why a 'check' is not read-only — every check leaves a sealed evidence record — and adds auth requirements (integrator API key in X-API-Key), the fact that no money moves, and the three verdict outcomes with what happens on non-MATCH (corrections array, retry budget, evidence pointer). This is materially more than the annotations convey and is consistent with them.

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-loaded with the action and the timing constraint, then the inputs, then the outcome semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs — auth, non-MATCH handling, and the no-money guarantee are all actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does: MATCH/REVIEW/BLOCK meanings, the ACF corrections structure, retry budget, and sealed evidence pointer. Combined with the documented auth header, an agent can call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so both mandate and mandate_id are already documented in the schema, including the 'provide either' rule. The description's parenthetical enumerating mandate contents (travelers, route, dates, cabin, fare terms, price limit) adds a useful summary but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'check a travel booking against the customer's instruction' — plus the decision point ('before the payment is captured or a ticket is issued'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions the sibling tools provecart_check_order or provecart_check_reservation, so an agent must infer which 'check_*' applies to which object.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Call this before paying or ticketing') and the two input modes (inline mandate vs mandate_id). It does not state when to prefer this over the sibling check_order/check_reservation tools, which is the one routing gap.

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