poll_flight

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond annotations: bodyless content-sync POST, X-Sync-Priority 0 or 10, optional If-None-Match, and 304 mapped to not_modified=true. These details are not present in the annotations or schema and materially affect correct invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core distinction and followed by protocol and result details. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool has annotations covering safety properties and an output schema, so the description need not explain returns or side effects. It covers the key polling semantics, non-subscription behavior, and the routine-read alternative.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains etag as If-None-Match and priority as X-Sync-Priority 0 or 10, but flight_id gets no explicit semantic explanation, leaving one required parameter to inference.

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 ('Poll changing flight content') and immediately distinguishes it from subscription/addition. The sibling set contains subscribe_flight and get_flight, and the description makes clear this is neither.

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?

Clearly says it does not subscribe/add a flight and recommends cached list_flights for routine reads, giving a practical alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with get_flight or subscribe_flight, but the usage context is strong.

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