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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (nombre, tipo, estrellas, valoración, foto, booking_url, map_url) and discloses that price/availability are best-effort ('intenta añadir'), which is an honest capability caveat an agent needs when interpreting results.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, return payload second, date-dependent behavior last. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return payload and does so field by field, which is the right call for a 7-parameter search tool. It leaves minor gaps, such as behavior on zero results or when destination is ambiguous, but nothing essential to calling it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the per-field schema by explaining the cross-parameter interaction: the check_in/check_out pair is what unlocks price and availability in the response, which the individual field descriptions do not convey.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('alojamientos') and enumerates the covered lodging types and geographic scope ('España o Latinoamérica hispanohablante'), which is materially more precise than the name alone. It does not name the sibling list_destinations, so the agent must infer the boundary itself — a clear purpose but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 date clause ('Con fechas de entrada y salida intenta añadir precio y disponibilidad reales; sin fechas no hay precio') effectively tells the agent when to supply dates, which is useful conditional guidance. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_destinations, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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