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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: fuzzy matching tolerates accents, aliases, and typos; the output is a stable identifier; and an `ambiguous` response should trigger a clarifying user question. It does not mention not-found/error behavior, but the provided traits go well 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?

Three sentences, with the core conversion front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. The usage hint and ambiguity-handling instruction each earn their place.

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 well to mention the stable `entityId` and the `ambiguous` signal. It covers input flexibility, type restriction, and the follow-up behavior. It omits explicit not-found behavior and a full response shape, but for a two-parameter resolver this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by framing `query` as loose user speech and by explaining that `type` narrows among parking, tram-stop, bus-stop, and beach. It also ties the query to the stable `entityId` output, which is not explicit in 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?

The description clearly states a specific action: converting a user-spoken name with typos, aliases, or accents into a stable `entityId` for one of four Alicante entity types. It also positions itself as the prerequisite step for `get_current_state`, which helps distinguish it from search-oriented siblings like `search_alicante` or `find_transit_stop`.

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 explicit usage context: 'Primer paso antes de get_current_state' tells the agent when to call this tool. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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