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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: no booking is created, held, modified or cancelled, and 'no booking exists until the customer completes it on the page' — a non-obvious state guarantee an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the safety/state clarification, then the routing rule. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what is returned (the booking page link) and clarifies that nothing is persisted server-side, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would face. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result 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% and the single flightId is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from search_empty_legs results. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the load — baseline 3.

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 ('Return the SkyAccess booking page link for a specific empty leg flight') and immediately scopes it to handing off to a customer. This is clearly distinguishable from search_empty_legs (find flights) and request_booking (specialist contact) among the siblings.

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 the positive condition (customer will review and book themselves) and an explicit alternative with its triggering condition: 'Use request_booking instead if the customer wants a specialist to contact them.' Nothing is left to inference.

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