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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is created or charged, no account is required, the token expires in 15 minutes, and pricing is a one-time fee or waived by a valid access code.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the operation, then the return payload, then the non-side-effect guarantees. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, yet it still summarizes the returned payload (submission preview, price, confirmation_token). The one gap is not routing the agent to the sibling that actually opens the case after the token is obtained.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying access_code to the price outcome (fee vs covered) and lang to the payment/case pages. It still does not clarify channel, phone, or email semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Checks the details for a case handled by the SOS Flights team') and enumerates the scope (rebooking help, hotel, evidence, follow-up). It implies a dry-run/preview distinct from sos_open_case via 'Nothing is created or charged', but never names the sibling that actually creates the case.

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?

Clear context for when this applies: a pre-submission check with no account needed and no charge, which tells the agent this is the step before committing. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (sos_open_case) or stating when not to use it.

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