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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculator. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the exact earning formula, per-flight rounding, that no minimum applies, that Status Flights are not fare-family weighted, that status bonuses apply only to Award Miles, the noearn exception cases, and that the tool is unofficial and uses cwsi.net and published rules.

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 purpose and core formula, then flows into rules and parameter guidance. It is dense and long, but the complexity of an 11-parameter airline earning calculator largely justifies the length. A few details repeat the schema's enum descriptions (e.g., fare-family percentages), which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining critical context: calculation rules, rounding, status thresholds, noearn exceptions, partner crediting behavior, ordering requirement for segs, and an unofficial-data caveat. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond individual schema fields by explaining the cross-parameter formula (distance × fare family %, rounded per flight), how status bonuses interact with Award Miles only, and that qm and qf are year-to-date totals. Some enum details duplicate the schema, but the computational relationship adds valuable semantics.

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 states a specific verb (calculates Award Miles, Status Miles and Status Flights) and resource (Royal Air Maroc Safar Flyer) with clear scope (Royal Air Maroc flights). It distinguishes itself from sibling airline calculators by naming the airline and loyalty program, and it explicitly names calculate_flight_distance as a helper.

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 explains when to set noearn to Y, when the status bonus applies, and how to use creditTo for partner programs versus leaving it out for Royal Air Maroc's own program. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling calculators or state 'do not use for other airlines,' but the first sentence and tool name make the intended use clear.

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