BuscaTuCamping: guía de campings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description steps in usefully with result behavior that annotations can't convey: a hard cap of 30 results and the shape of each item (población, estado de temporada, precio orientativo, URL). It omits ordering and the absence of pagination/offset.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the long sentence is dense but each clause carries information. The nested parentheses for the date rules slightly hamper scanability, keeping it below a 5.

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?

With 10 parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining gap: what is returned, how many, and with which fields. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 carries all parameter meaning; the description's enumeration of filters and the date-range rule largely restates it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Busca campings de la guía BuscaTuCamping') and scopes it to a zone with optional filters. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling campings_cerca by framing the search as text-based on población/provincia/comunidad/nombre, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 tells how to combine date filters ('un día con abierto_en o un rango con abierto_desde y abierto_hasta'), which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs campings_cerca or ficha_camping, and no mention of prerequisites or empty-result behavior.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: results are ranked by straight-line distance (not driving distance), default night is today, and each result carries seasonal-open status for that night, van-service presence, dog policy, indicative price and detail-page URL. It does not mention the result cap or what happens with ambiguous place names.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and its ranking rule, then the use case, then the input instruction; nothing is padding. The first sentence is a long comma-chained list of returned attributes, which makes it denser than necessary but still earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the fields an agent will get back, and it explains the coordinate alternatives. Minor gaps remain: precedence when both lat/lng and lugar are supplied, and how a place name is geocoded.

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 3 is the baseline. The description goes beyond it by establishing the lat/lng-versus-lugar either/or semantics and restating the default date of today, which the schema only implies.

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?

Precise verb+resource+scope: nearest campsites to a position or place for a specific overnight, sorted by straight-line distance, with the attributes returned enumerated. What it does not do is differentiate itself from the sibling buscar_campings, which an agent could easily confuse with this search; the title/name alone must carry that distinction.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger question («estoy en X con la autocaravana, ¿dónde puedo dormir esta noche cerca?») and states the input rule «Indique lat y lng o un lugar». It stops short of naming buscar_campings or stating when not to use this tool, so exclusions are absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the season status is evaluated as of a given date and includes where and when it was verified, and the price is only orientativo. Missing only error/edge-case behavior when neither identifier is provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource description and ending with the identification guidance. The long field enumeration earns its place because no output schema exists, though it is dense in a single clause.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance, and that is done thoroughly. The remaining gap is the zero-required-parameter situation: the description never states whether an id, a URL, or neither is acceptable.

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 each parameter is already documented; the description still adds routing value by tying id to buscar_campings and noting that fecha (default today) determines the season state for each camping. It does not, however, resolve the ambiguity of which identifier wins if both id and url are passed.

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 resource (camping data from the BuscaTuCamping guide) and enumerates the returned fields precisely, from location to season status, price, services and offers. It also names the sibling buscar_campings as the source of the id, which lets an agent distinguish this detail lookup from the search tools.

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?

Explains the two identification routes — id returned by buscar_campings, or the ficha URL — which effectively documents the intended workflow (search first, then fetch the ficha). It does not spell out what happens if neither is supplied, nor explicitly excludes any use case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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