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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are explained ('and why') and link to each program's page, which is useful output context, but says nothing about unmatched inputs, partial coverage, or ordering.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the input then the output, and no filler. The phrase 'and why, with each program's page' efficiently conveys both the reasoning and the returned reference.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers input meaning and rough return shape (program list, rationale, page link). Only edge-case and error behavior is missing, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 the single parameter already carries an example. The description adds the mild clarification that the array may mix card slugs and lounge-program slugs, but gives no format rules or guidance on ambiguity beyond that.

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 outcome: given held card/program slugs, list every lounge program the traveler can use, plus the reason and each program's page. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_lounge (single lounge detail) or search_lounges (discovery), though it never names those alternatives.

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 only implied: the input framing ('slugs a traveler holds') tells the agent what to feed it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_lounges or get_program, and no statement about what happens with unrecognized slugs or empty results.

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