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.