Iberá Experience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a hard cap of 20 returned products, the empty-catalog case returning an empty list with a "catálogo vacío" notice, and that booking is by request rather than instant.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered sentence front-loads catalog scope, then filters, then return shape and the empty case. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a broken-out version would be.

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 does the work of describing the return payload (id, prestador, portal, tipo, precio con vigencia, capacidad, idiomas, cancelación, ficha link) and the total count, plus the empty-catalog behavior. That covers what an agent needs for a 7-parameter read tool; only pagination beyond the 20-item cap is unaddressed.

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 already documents every parameter, including enums for tipo, idioma and moneda. The description only restates the filter axes generically and adds no syntax, defaults or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Busca") and a precisely scoped resource: the sellable Iberá Experience catalog covering experiences, lodgings, transfers, guides and multi-day trips. The scope is defined well enough that an agent can distinguish it from buscar_prestadores or detalle_experiencia without opening a schema.

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 lists the filter axes (portal, tipo, personas, presupuesto, idioma, texto libre), which implies the search-and-filter use case, and notes that booking is "por solicitud". However, it never says when to prefer a sibling such as detalle_experiencia for a single product or buscar_prestadores for provider lookups, and gives no exclusions.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: a hard result cap of 20, the exact fields returned, and the important limitation that no phone/email is exposed and contact lives only behind the ficha link. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 verb and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by searchable dimensions, return shape and limitations. Every clause carries information (result cap, fields, contact restriction, non-bookability), with only mild verbosity from the parenthetical enumerations.

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 must describe returns, and it does: up to 20 providers with name, rubro, pueblo, indicative price or 'Consultar', score, reviews and ficha link, plus the total count. The one gap is pagination or how to retrieve beyond the 20-result cap.

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 already documents texto, portal and categoria, and the enum values carry the category semantics. The description restates the three search dimensions without adding syntax, format or precedence rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Busca en el directorio completo de la guía') and enumerates the exact provider types covered, so an agent knows precisely what is searched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling buscar_experiencias, leaving ambiguity about which of the two search tools fits a given query.

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?

Usage is implicit in the enumeration of searchable dimensions (portal, categoría, texto) and there is one useful exclusion ('estos prestadores no se reservan a través de este servidor'), which steers the agent away from booking via this tool. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over buscar_experiencias or detalle_experiencia, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context on what bundled data is returned (path status, portal alerts, priced transfers), but omits any fallback behavior explanation beyond the schema note about a default origin.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the return value and then enumerates the bundled data. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing list of returns is slightly dense.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope and returned data. No annotation or schema gaps remain, though it does not explain response structure.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the origin default behavior. The description adds the list of origin cities and the bundled content, but no syntax or format details beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (devuelve) and concrete resources (rutas, distancias, tiempos) for a named domain concept (portal), with origin cities listed. Sibling tools are all search/booking tools, so this read-only routing tool is clearly distinct.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of what it returns, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The origin enum hints at intended contexts but the description does not route the agent between siblings.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it discloses that provider contact details (phones/emails) are intentionally excluded and that an id not in the catalog returns an error. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a public read-only detail endpoint that is not a major gap.

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 core action ('Devuelve todo lo publicado...') followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields. The final sentence covers the error case compactly. The long comma-separated list is information-rich rather than wasteful, though it could be formatted more scannably.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned; it does so extensively by enumerating price, validity, duration, schedules, season, capacity, inclusions/exclusions, cancellation, meeting point, languages, provider profile, and booking instructions. It also covers the error case. The main missing piece is routing guidance versus siblings like preparar_solicitud_reserva, but for a single-id detail lookup this is nearly complete.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is the product id as returned by buscar_experiencias. The description reiterates that lookup is by id and adds the error condition for unknown ids, but adds little semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 ('Devuelve') and resource ('producto del catálogo vendible') scoped by id, and enumerates the exact fields returned (price, hours, season, capacity, inclusions, cancellation, meeting point, languages, provider profile, booking instructions). This distinguishes it from list/search siblings like buscar_experiencias without ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It only mentions the error behavior for an unknown id, which is a behavioral fact, not usage routing. The schema references buscar_experiencias for the id, but the description itself leaves the agent to infer that this is the detail lookup to use after search.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing exactly what each record contains (pueblo, mejor época, alertas vigentes, entrada al parque, conteos por rubro, link a la guía), which is the useful extra context here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler; the verb and scope come first and the field enumeration follows. The list of returned fields is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating every field an agent would receive. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, implying a no-argument call.

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 (devuelve/listar) and a precise resource (los 10 portales de acceso a los Esteros del Iberá), including the fixed cardinality. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling search tools like buscar_prestadores or buscar_experiencias, which query rather than enumerate a fixed set.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated payload suggests this is the orientation/overview call for portals. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over buscar_prestadores or como_llegar, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly saying nothing is sent, booked or charged. It goes further than the annotations by explaining the real-world confirmation flow (the provider confirms via Iberá Experience), which an agent needs to set user expectations correctly.

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 action and its outputs, with the no-side-effect caveat immediately after. The first sentence is long and nests a parenthetical param list, but 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by naming the two return values (WhatsApp link and mailto with the message pre-written). Combined with the no-side-effect and confirmation semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and explain 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including which are optional. The description's param list ('producto, fecha, cantidad de personas, nombre y comentario opcionales, y una referencia') largely restates the schema and introduces an ambiguous 'referencia' that does not map cleanly to any parameter name, adding mild confusion rather than extra meaning.

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 concrete verb+artifact: it builds a reservation request message for a catalog product and returns a WhatsApp link plus a pre-filled mailto. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like buscar_experiencias, detalle_experiencia, como_llegar and listar_portales.

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 frames the situation (someone wants to request a booking and will send the message themselves) and draws a hard when-not boundary: it does not send, reserve or charge. It does not, however, name any sibling tool or say which tool to use first (e.g., detalle_experiencia) to obtain the product id.

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