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.