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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is free (no x402 payment) and spells out the three status values and their operational meaning. It also makes a useful negative disclosure (no customer_support_code or passenger PII; those are only returned at creation and /book). It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or error behavior for an invalid intent_id.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the cost note, then state semantics, then the negative disclosure. Every clause earns its place — the state glossary directly drives agent polling behavior and the 'free' note matters given the paid-endpoint siblings.

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 return fields needn't be enumerated, yet the description still explains the meaningful state values and what is deliberately absent from the response. The only gap is that it says nothing about failure modes for an unknown or expired intent_id.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines intent_id and its origin (returned by travel_create_booking_intent). The description adds no syntax, format, or lifecycle detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Fetch the current state of a booking intent') and immediately differentiates it from siblings by naming travel_book_flight, travel_get_order, and the creation endpoint. An agent can tell this is a read-only status poll rather than the create/book/order tools without opening any 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 says when to use it ('poll status after travel_book_flight') and routes onward: call travel_get_order for airline details once 'booked'. It also encodes the decision logic per state ('keep polling', 'booking failed'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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