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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns up to 3 alternatives, does not provide per-night prices ('nunca precios por noche'), and relies on already-queried availability. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 core content is concise and front-loaded with the purpose and usage. However, the English and Spanish versions duplicate the same information, adding length without new value. Still, it remains readable and not bloated.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and some behavior, and the output schema explains return structure. But the lack of parameter documentation (given 0% schema coverage) is a significant gap that forces the agent to guess about inputs. For a simple read-only lookup, this is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the two parameters (oferta_paquete_firmada and noche_num). It mentions 'ONE night' but does not map it to noche_num, nor does it clarify what the package identifier should be. With no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns up to 3 alternative hotels for a specific night of a quoted Camino package, listing the fields (variation, room, meal plan, distance). It explicitly differentiates from re-quoting the whole trip and points to the swap tool for applying a choice, so it is easy to distinguish from siblings.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use it when the client wants a different hotel in a town — do NOT re-quote the whole trip' and then instructs to apply with swap_camino_hotel. This clearly indicates when to use it and what not to do, making the intended workflow unambiguous.

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