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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so this is a safe deterministic lookup. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the answer — applicable law, up to three remedy options, care owed, a compensation range with conditions, warnings — plus the 'not legal advice' limitation, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact inventory of the return contents. The output enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item (law, options, care, compensation, warnings, disclaimer) carries distinct information.

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 13 parameters fully described in the schema, complete annotations, and an output schema present, everything the agent needs is available. The description still front-loads scope and the legal-advice caveat, so nothing material 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 every parameter is already documented with format hints (IATA codes, minutes, enum meanings). The description only echoes the disruption categories (cancellation, delay, overbooked, missed connection) that map to the type enum, adding no new parameter-level meaning. 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 (checks) and resource (a flight disruption) and names the three legal regimes it evaluates against. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are case/message/alternatives utilities rather than rule-evaluation.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (check rights first, then presumably prepare a case or message), and the 'advice only, not legal advice' note sets expectations. However, it never says when to call this instead of sos_prepare_case or sos_desk_script, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an open case) may apply.

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