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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are scoped to the signed-in account, and the tracking_key it returns is the handle the update/stop tools take, which tells the agent how to chain calls.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'Use to see...' intent and no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on with its comma-separated field list, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so listing return fields is not strictly required, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still fills the remaining gaps (account scoping, tracking_key handoff). Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-200, newest first). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics 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 ('see the seat alerts on the signed-in account') and enumerates the returned fields (flight, departure, cabin, watched seats, open status). This cleanly separates it from the sibling list_tracked_flights and list_tracked_hotels, which cover different tracked entities.

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 clear context ('seat alerts on the signed-in account') and implicitly routes the agent onward by noting the returned tracking_key is what the update and stop tools consume, which is a real workflow hint. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool.

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