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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds trail-order semantics and field meaning, but no additional behavioral caveats such as rate limits, authentication, or output edge cases. This is useful but modest context beyond 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 core definition and usage are front-loaded in the English text, followed by a Spanish translation and a clarifying note about plan_camino_itinerary. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to bilingual repetition and the trailing `(es: poblaciones_ruta)` tag, but each substantive clause earns its 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers core purpose and usage well. However, it does not tell the agent how to find or validate a `camino_slug` value, e.g., via list_camino_rutes, which is necessary to invoke the 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 `camino_slug`, and the description never explains what a slug is, where it comes from, or how valid values are obtained. The parameter name and title are suggestive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema guidance.

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 specific resource: towns along a Camino route in trail order, with id, name, cumulative km, and GPS coordinates. Differentiates from related tooling by noting it provides the ordered town list while plan_camino_itinerary constructs bookable stages.

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 enumerates three use cases: picking the starting town (`poblacion_inicio_id` for plan_camino_itinerary), locating the 100 km Compostela threshold, and validating overnight stops. Also names plan_camino_itinerary as the tool that builds reservable stages, indicating what this tool does not do.

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