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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only lists content topics. It does not mention return format, optional filtering behavior, or confirm the tool is read-only. Some behavior is covered in the schema, but the description itself adds no transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and it lists all relevant topics without redundancy. Every part is informative, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple with 0 required parameters and a rich schema, so the description covers the main purpose adequately. However, it omits any indication of the response format or fallback behavior when both parameters are omitted, which would make it fully 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's enumeration of categories largely mirrors the categoria enum, adding little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 the tool provides practical travel information for the Canary Islands, enumerating specific topics (documents, currency, language, time zone, etc.). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like clima_isola or info_zona.

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 implies usage by listing content categories, so an agent can infer it is for practical travel queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like faq or info_zona, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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