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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'Classification: read-only' is redundant. It does add that execution is synchronous and that task support is forbidden, which are useful behavioral hints. The note about 'internal application state' is a mild disclosure, but it doesn't detail any side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is relatively short but is structured as a run-on sentence that mixes operational metadata (classification, execution) with generic output formatting instructions. Some parts, such as 'Mention IDs only when useful,' are not specific to this tool and appear to be global instructions, making the description less focused than it could be.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a flight is, what data the tool retrieves, or how it fits into the broader workflow. The presence of an output schema helps, but without context about the resource and its relationship to other tools, the description fails to provide sufficient operational context.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters like flightId, seatId, assetId, etc. It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent completely in the dark about what each parameter is for or how they relate to the tool's purpose. This is a critical gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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 begins with 'get flight,' which merely restates the tool name and provides no additional detail about what a flight represents or what the tool actually does. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like list_flights or get_campaign, and the mention of 'internal application state' is vague and unhelpful for understanding the resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_flights or validate_flight. The description focuses entirely on output presentation rules (e.g., use assistantSummary, avoid raw JSON) rather than the tool's intended usage context, leaving the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool.

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