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.