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.