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

Annotations already cover readOnly and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: Virtuoso records carry no published rate or availability, and an advisor quotes in writing within 24 hours. It also discloses that responses include a hotel's Virtuoso perks. It stops short of describing error behavior or what a non-Virtuoso record returns.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and source leading and the Virtuoso caveat following as a secondary constraint. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sets the right expectations about response content (perks) and its limits (no rate/availability, 24-hour written quote). Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the trip_id is invalid or not found.

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 schema already states trip_id comes from search_trips or a virtuoso_property_id. The description repeats the search_trips origin without adding format, fallback, or edge-case guidance, so the 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 (get details) plus the exact resource types (hotel, package, cruise, private experience) and anchors the source to search_trips, a named sibling. An agent can distinguish this from search_trips or get_availability_quote without opening a schema.

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 ties invocation to a prior search_trips call and names the input it expects, which is clear usage context. The Virtuoso note implicitly signals that rate/availability questions belong elsewhere (e.g., get_availability_quote), but no sibling is named as an alternative for that need, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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