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

Beyond what annotations convey, it discloses the ~5-minute async duration, the daily slot cost, the polling requirement, and the guest-vs-signed-in ownership semantics. Explaining that claim_url must be given to the human is genuinely useful behavioral context, and nothing contradicts the provided annotations.

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 dense sentences front-load the action, then add timing/cost and the output/action requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the capitalized instruction 'GIVE claim_url TO THE HUMAN' is an effective, targeted signal.

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 an async mutating tool with no output schema, the description explains the output contract, the polling route, the cost, and the required human handoff. Minor gaps such as what 'grant' actually represents and failure behavior are not critical for tool selection or invocation, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the only required parameter, brief, with components and an example, but lang and origin are left semantically unstated. Origin in particular is not self-explanatory despite its default, so the description does not fully carry the load for all parameters.

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 clear action and resource: 'Start REAL Skym trip research from a natural-language brief'. The example brief and stated return values (trip_id, grant, claim_url) make the tool's role unambiguous, and the explicit mention of polling with trip_status differentiates it from sibling tools like trip_status and find_resorts.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the user gives a natural-language trip brief. It also tells the agent to follow up with trip_status and to pass claim_url to the human. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives like find_resorts or where_to_ski, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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