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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: available=false signals the offer is no longer listed, which tells the agent how to interpret a stale result. It does not mention error behavior for an invalid or expired ref.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the one behavioral caveat. Nothing is wasted and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description supplies the key status-flag semantics for available. The only gap is the undocumented locale parameter, which leaves a small blind spot for a two-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: ref is documented in the schema (and reinforced in the description), but locale has no description anywhere, only an en/de enum. The description thus adds no new parameter meaning and leaves the language selector's effect unexplained. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 (get) and resource (one empty-leg offer) and identifies the exact identifier source: the ref returned by search_empty_legs. This cleanly separates it from search_empty_legs, which finds offers, and from the other siblings, which are all creation/request flows.

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?

The description effectively states the prerequisite workflow: you get a ref from search_empty_legs, then call this tool to refresh that offer's details. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or what to do if the ref is stale, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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