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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the airline-limit tiers being compared and the return shape, but since an output schema exists, the return mention is largely redundant and no deeper behavioral context (e.g., which limits are defaulted) is given.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The 'Returns: {total_kg, status}' clause is slightly redundant given the output schema, costing a point.

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 single-parameter, read-only calculator with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is computed, what it is compared against, and a pointer to related voyage tools.

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%, and the single parameter is documented in the schema as 'Array of luggage items with name and weight in kg'. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Calculate total luggage weight') and adds scope detail ('compare to airline limits (carry-on, economy checked, business checked)'). It doesn't name a competing sibling, but no other luggage-weight calculator exists in the sibling list, so disambiguation is inherent.

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?

'See list_bundles for related voyage calculators' points toward adjacent tooling but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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