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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is “cheap and instant (no availability check)” and returns answers from a specialist team. No contradiction with 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the content is information-dense, which helps an agent match queries. However, the entire English block is effectively duplicated in Spanish, roughly doubling the length, and it ends with a stray fragment “(es: info_camino)”. For an agent reader, the bilingual repetition is not essential.

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 only 2 parameters, an output schema present, and safety annotations covering behavior, the description supplies what is missing: parameter meanings, usage scope, and the non-booking use case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is omitted, though the redundancy makes it longer than necessary.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it documents `question` as free text in any language and `idioma` as es | en with auto-detection when omitted. This fully compensates for the empty schema and mirrors the parameter names exactly.

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 precise purpose: practical, up-to-date Camino answers from a specialist team, explicitly framed as an info/FAQ Q&A tool for ANY Camino question even without booking. This cleanly separates it from the 11 sibling tools, which are booking, planning, and route-query tools. The exhaustive topic list further pins down the exact resource it addresses.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for “ANY Camino question even when the user is not booking” and repeats this in Spanish (“aunque el usuario no quiera reservar”), which is clear guidance on when to reach for it. It gives the language-parameter behavior (auto-detected if omitted), though it does not name specific sibling alternatives to route away from.

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