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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: the returned link is valid 7 days, the customer reviews day-by-day and pays securely, and this is 'única llamada a la acción' (single call to action). Annotations already flag non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the added side-effect details genuinely help.

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 action is front-loaded and the restrictions are clear. However, the bilingual repetition ('Crea la petición en Ourway...') and the trailing '(es: crear_propuesta)' add redundancy without much new value. Trimming to the English content would improve conciseness.

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?

Covers prerequisites, offer source, and the 7-day proposal link, which is enough for tool selection. But with 7 parameters, 5 required, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits guidance for several required arguments, especially camino_slug, idioma_codigo, and formulario. The output schema helps but does not fully replace missing parameter orientation.

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 compensate. It clarifies that oferta_paquete_firmada means the signed offer from quote_camino_package / swap_camino_hotel and that cliente requires full name, email, phone, and nationality. However, idioma_codigo, camino_slug, poblacion_inicio fields, and formulario are not explained, leaving partial coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Create the Ourway booking request for a quoted Camino de Santiago package' and returns a concrete artifact, the customer's personal proposal link. It also differentiates from siblings by requiring a signed offer from quote_camino_package / swap_camino_hotel and by being the post-approval booking-proposal step.

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 when to call it: 'ONLY call it after the customer explicitly approves the itinerary and the package total and gives real contact details.' It also states what it does not accept, 'no prices: only the signed offer,' which effectively routes the agent away from quote-level tools.

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