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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by listing the possible statuses (active/confirmed/expired) and mentioning the link and deadline in the response, which the agent would not know otherwise. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and result, followed by a clear usage trigger. The bilingual addition is a minor redundancy but not wasteful. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still mentions the key fields (status, link, deadline). The usage context is clear, and the example code clarifies the expected input. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter documentation, but this is largely covered by the example and usage trigger. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'codigo' (string). The description compensates somewhat by referencing 'code PET-123' and mentioning 'gives a PET code', implying the parameter is the proposal code. However, it does not explicitly state that the 'codigo' parameter should be the PET-format code, nor does it specify the exact format beyond the example. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description could have been more explicit about the parameter's meaning and acceptable input format.

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 checks the status of a booking proposal, listing the possible statuses (active/confirmed/expired) and additional data (link, deadline). It provides a concrete example code 'PET-123' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_camino_booking_proposal or adjust_camino_package by focusing on status retrieval. This is a specific verb-resource pairing with clear scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the customer returns asking about 'my proposal', 'my booking', or provides a PET code. It gives concrete trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the context clearly separates it from other operations like creation or adjustment.

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