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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals the critical behavior that both folio and nombre_cliente must match, framed as protection against querying others' reservations. It does not describe error details or return format, but the security constraint is a significant behavioral trait.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then prerequisites, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or wasted words.

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 simple query tool with only two parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and use cases. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. It lacks details on failure scenarios, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter names and titles with zero descriptions. The description compensates by giving a concrete folio example ('FILOSALO-0003') and clarifying that nombre_cliente is the name under which the reservation was made, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check the status of an existing reservation in Aisha. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('reserva existente'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cancelar_reserva or crear_reserva by focusing on status inquiry.

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?

It explicitly provides use cases: 'Úsala cuando la persona pregunte "¿sigue en pie mi cita?" o quiera confirmar fecha, hora o dirección.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which is a minor gap.

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