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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real behavioral context: a blocking wait of up to ~40 seconds, a possible 'pending' terminal state, zero cost, and no searching side effects. These traits are exactly what an agent needs to avoid mis-handling the call, and none are derivable from the 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the fetch action and immediate call timing, then the wait/pending behavior and the retry-vs-restart rule. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing both return shapes (finished options vs. status 'pending') and the retry policy. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and loop correctly.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as the quoteReference returned by itinerary_quote. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, length, or reuse semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (the result of an itinerary_quote) plus the key input (quoteReference it returned). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling itinerary_quote that produces the reference, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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 to call it straight away, that it blocks ~40 seconds while pricing, and that on 'pending' the agent should call again rather than starting a second quote. The when-to-use and the when-not-to-restart guidance are both stated, not inferred.

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