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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tier-mile formula, award-mile multipliers by status, Gold extras requiring toCountry, the 12-month progress logic, the note-only status of future rules, and the unofficial cwsi.net data source. It also discloses that unlisted classes or routes earn nothing and says so, which is useful transparency for a calculator. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it quickly becomes a dense, comma-heavy paragraph that is difficult to parse. Much of the detail is relevant for this complex calculator, yet the lack of paragraph breaks or clear grouping makes it less concise than it could be. It is appropriately sized for the domain but structurally weak.

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 high complexity, the 10-parameter schema, the 100% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides an unusually complete picture. It covers calculation rules, fare family and booking class semantics, award-mile multipliers, Gold extras, progress tracking, partner-program crediting, and data provenance. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly without needing return-value explanations that the output schema already supplies.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter in detail, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: it explains that Gold extras need toCountry, that segs entries are one-way flights in order with required from/to IATA codes, that creditTo uses creditFlights with great-circle miles, and that the tool takes no price. These relationships and constraints go beyond raw field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it calculates Aegean Airlines Miles+Bonus tier miles and award miles for Aegean and Olympic Air flights. It immediately distinguishes the scope from sibling airline calculators by naming the airline programs and the underlying route table, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 states the scope of applicability (Aegean/Olympic flights, route-table-based earning, fare family and booking class constraints) and notes that unlisted classes or routes earn nothing. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the many sibling airline calculators, nor does it name alternatives for non-Aegean flights. The usage is implied by the airline-specific name and scope, but the guidance remains implicit.

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