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.