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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them by enumerating what does NOT happen: no booking, hold, or payment is created and no traveller details are sent to Altivo. That data-sharing and side-effect disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the safety caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a simple read-only link generator with no output schema and a fully documented single param, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't state that the return value is a URL/link, nor anything about link validity or expiry.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ('Leg reference from search_empty_legs' already documents origin and format). The description adds nothing about the ref beyond what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource: returns the altivojets.com page for reviewing an empty leg and submitting a booking request. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_empty_legs (find legs) and request_quote (agent-initiated booking) by making the self-service handoff explicit.

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 rather than stated: the traveller sends the request themselves, which contrasts with request_quote, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use condition (e.g. 'call after search_empty_legs when the traveller wants to book directly') is given.

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