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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond that: the call takes about a minute, returns a quoteReference immediately, the separate status call waits for the result, and the reference is the only way to retrieve the quote.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when to use versus fare_quote, async behavior, and reference retention. The most important selection constraint and workflow are front-loaded, with no filler.

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 complex async tool with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description explains what is returned at a high level, the quoteReference handoff, and the required follow-up status call. Nothing essential for correct invocation or retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters such as cities, dates, cabin, and traveller counts are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or formatting meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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: pricing a complete multi-stop or round-the-world trip, returning multiple ticketing options with actual tickets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling fare_quote and names itinerary_quote_status for the follow-up call.

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 to use this for trips that will not go on a single fare, especially 3+ stops, and to use fare_quote when one specific itinerary on one ticket is wanted. It also directs the agent to call itinerary_quote_status immediately with the returned reference.

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