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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results may be partial mid-search and a status field terminates at 'completed' or 'failed'. This is the kind of polling-lifecycle detail annotations cannot express.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The payload contents are front-loaded and the partial/status caveat follows immediately, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the source of the session, the payload, and terminal statuses. The only omission is relation to the generic poll_search_results sibling, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with the sessionId field already documented as coming from search_flights_live; the description repeats that origin without adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (returns/polls) and resource (flight search session results), and names the sibling that creates the session, search_flights_live. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling poll_search_results, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the description notes results may be partial while the search runs and that status flips to 'completed'/'failed' when done, which tells the agent to keep polling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus poll_search_results, and no exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. session must exist) stated.

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