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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two key traits: it is free (no x402 payment) and it requires authorization via the customer_support_code. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g. what happens if the order is not yet synced) or rate limits, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the first delivers purpose plus cost and auth, the second delivers the ordering precondition. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, auth source, and the sequencing precondition. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both schema descriptions already state the provenance of order_id (from airline_order_id) and support_code (returned by travel_create_booking_intent). The description's mention of support_code adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 (Fetch) and resource (airline order), and enumerates what the caller gets back (PNR, booking reference, ticket total). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads like travel_get_booking_intent because it names the airline-order artifact rather than the intent.

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 gives the precondition: call after travel_get_booking_intent shows status='booked' and airline_order_id is populated. It also distinguishes the sibling it follows (travel_create_booking_intent supplies the support_code) and notes the cost model is free/no x402 payment, so no alternative paid path is needed.

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