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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context like the 300 km radius and 48-hour window, but does not cover potential rate limits, auth requirements, or latency.

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 concise: first sentence states purpose, second lists per-segment outputs, third explains flags, fourth details arguments. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's complexity (multi-segment itinerary assessment) and the sparse schema, the description provides necessary context about what is evaluated and the argument structure. With an output schema present, it need not explain return values, but more guidance on usage vs siblings could improve completeness.

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 0% and the schema itself is nearly empty (segments as untyped array). The description compensates by detailing the segment object structure (type, flight, from_airport, to_airport, country, city, start, end) and the optional trip_id, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it checks a whole itinerary in one call, listing exactly what is returned per segment (country risk score, advisory levels, alerts within 300 km, live flight status). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like country_risk or active_alerts.

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?

It implies usage by describing what it does and the conditions (e.g., live status for flights departing within 48 hours, alerts within 300 km). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer them over using multiple sibling tools.

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