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

The description discloses that the result is 'Indicative; final decision by claim partner,' which tells the agent the output is not authoritative. However, it does not describe any side effects, error conditions, or data requirements beyond that, so the behavioral transparency is limited.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key constraints (EU261, amounts, categories). It is efficient without unnecessary 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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and poor schema parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. An agent would need to infer parameter formats and possible values, and there is no information about expected response structure.

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 input schema has 0% descriptive coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at problem_type categories (delay/cancellation/denied_boarding) but does not explain required fields like departure, arrival, or delay_hours, nor their format (e.g., airport codes, hours unit).

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 explicitly states the tool estimates EU261 flight compensation eligibility for delay/cancellation/denied_boarding, with specific amounts (EUR 250/400/600). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_airline and get_distance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_coverage or create_claim. The description does not state conditions or prerequisites for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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