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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 5-15 second latency, the cheapest-first ordering, the live_confirmed/stored marking of each offer, one-minute result caching, and the rate_limited failure mode that returns no offers. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are in the annotation set.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then output shape, latency, when to use it, and the caching/rate-limit caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still explains how offers are labeled and ordered, and it covers latency, caching, and the rate_limited outcome. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 currency, product_id and wait_seconds are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 — checking a product's prices live across every airport shop that sells it — and clarifies the mechanism (SkyBuyFly opens each shop's page now). This clearly separates it from stored-history siblings such as get_price_history.

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?

"Relevant when a traveller wants current prices or is deciding where to buy" gives clear situational guidance, and the live_confirmed vs stored distinction implicitly signals when the historical tool is the better fit. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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